PAVING THE PATH

TO DEBT-FREE
COLLEGE
APRIL 2023
 Acknowledgments
The Institute for College Access & Success is a trusted source of research, design,
and advocacy for student-centered public policies that promote affordability,
accountability, and equity in higher education. To learn more about TICAS,
visit ticas.org and follow us on Twitter at @TICAS_org.

We are grateful to our foundation partners and individual donors whose support
makes TICAS’ work possible. The views expressed in this paper are solely those
of TICAS and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders.

This report can be reproduced, with attribution, within the terms of this Creative
Commons license: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

PAGE 2
Table of Contents

Chapters
01 Introduction: Paving the Path to Debt-Free College 4

State and Federal Partnerships for College Affordability: 8

02 Assessing the Options

Creating a Federal-State Partnership to Guarantee Affordability 28

03 for Students through Free College

Federal-State Partnerships: Why Centering Support for Rural, 42

04

Regional, and Minority-Serving Institutions Can Improve
College Affordability and Student Success in the U.S.

05 Improving and Using Data to Close Success Gaps 62

Ensuring Instructional Quality with Increasing Reliance 76

06 on Non-Tenure-Track Faculty

The Research Mission and College Affordability:
07 Context and Policy Recommendations
90

Author Biographies 102

Peer Reviewers 104

 01 Introduction
Both the federal and state governments make large
investments in higher education. State governments
operate public colleges and universities, which
collectively serve 75 percent of undergraduates,
while the federal government provides financial aid
directly to students through its voucher-like student
aid programs, in addition to providing research funding
and other institutional supports.

PAGE 4
In the 2021–22 academic year, the federal government government. Ideally, such a partnership would
provided $234.6 billion in aid to undergraduate and incentivize states to better — and more equitably —
graduate students in the form of federal grants, loans, fund their public institutions, with the goal of increasing
tax credits, and federal work-study funds, while state investments to lower costs for students and improve
and local governments spent $109.5 billion (excluding institutional quality.
pandemic relief funds). 1

To guide policymakers as they weigh such proposals,

However, while state systems rely heavily on federal The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS)

aid, they share no official direct relationship. This commissioned a group of leading academics to write

disconnect impedes federal-state coordination to lower the following series of papers. The goal of these

college costs, reduce reliance on debt, and improve papers is not to establish the definitive, optimal way

institutional quality. to design a path to debt-free college. Rather, they are

meant to inform the policy conversation about how

Meanwhile, state support for public higher education to most effectively and equitably address the ongoing

has been declining for decades, and the cost of college crisis of high costs, high debt burdens, and decreasing

has shifted ever more from a public responsibility to an confidence in the value of higher education.

individual one. The cost of attending once-affordable

The first three papers outline the current college
public institutions continues to rise, most students take
financing landscape, examine the trade-offs of recent
on debt to pay for college, and many colleges lack the
federal-state funding partnership proposals, and
resources to adequately support their students.2
discuss potential policy options for reducing reliance
on debt, including implementing state and local
Open-access public colleges, as well as public
promise programs and increasing funding to historically
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
underserved institutions.
and other minority-serving institutions, face particular
challenges. They are chronically underfunded • State and Federal Partnerships for College
compared to other public institutions, leaving them Affordability: Assessing the Options.
with inadequate resources to support student success. Jennifer Delaney and William Doyle consider
the structural barriers facing state support for

State support for public higher education and evaluate four recent federal-
state partnership proposals. Their analysis details
higher education has been underlying assumptions in the higher education
declining for decades, and system and cost challenges faced by the sector, the

the cost of college has

diversity of higher education systems and funding
models across the states, and structural barriers that
shifted ever more from a higher education funding faces within state budgets.

public responsibility to • Creating a Federal-State Partnership to

an individual one. Guarantee Affordability for Students
Through Free College.
There is broad agreement that this system is Kelly Rosinger tracks the growth in free college
unsustainable not only for students but for colleges, programs at the local and state levels, provides an
states, and the federal government. To address these overview of design variations, and outlines policy
issues, policymakers have considered creating an recommendations for designing an equitable and
official partnership between states and the federal effective federal free college program.

1
College Board. Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid 2022. 2022. https://bit.ly/3XTp9y1; SHEEO. State Higher Education Finance FY 2021. 2022. https://bit.ly/3jgSyTP.
2
The Institute for College Access & Success. 2019. Dire Disparities: Patterns of Racially Inequitable Funding and Student Success in Public Postsecondary Education. https://bit.ly/2Zn7TXL.

INTRODUCTION | PAGE 5
 • Federal-State Partnerships: Why • Ensuring Instructional Quality with Increasing
Centering Support for Rural, Regional, Reliance on Non-Tenure-Track Faculty.
and Minority-Serving Institutions Can Di Xu examines the impact that contingent and
Improve College Affordability and part-time faculty utilization can have on student
Student Success in the United States outcomes and faculty well-being, alongside concerns
Vanessa Sansone examines the funding disparities that a major new federal funding injection could
between public flagship universities and Rural- spur increased enrollment and further accelerate
Serving Institutions, Regional Comprehensive the use of such faculty. The paper then discusses
Universities, and Minority-Serving Institutions how policymakers can address these concerns in
— and how these disparities contribute to a lack a federal-state funding partnership.
of resources for colleges that serve a racially and
economically diverse student body. The paper • The Research Mission and College
presents recommendations for expanding funding Affordability: Context and Policy
at open-access universities to improve overall Recommendations.
educational attainment and close equity gaps Brendan Cantwell examines the role of research
in enrollment and completion rates. universities in the college affordability discussion,
including the importance of the research mission,
The second group of papers examine specific how the research mission has expanded, and how
components that could be addressed as part of a some of the costs of research are passed on to
larger federal-state funding partnership proposal: students. He then outlines ways that policymakers
using longitudinal data to close equity gaps; improving can preserve the research mission while limiting
student academic outcomes by establishing minimum
students’ exposure to the cost of research.
standards for faculty; and how research institutions can
preserve the research mission while limiting students’
Collectively, these papers help strengthen and expand
exposure to associated costs.
the public policy conversation about how the federal
government can partner with states, local governments, and
• Improving and Using Data
colleges to support universal and open access to low- or
to Close Success Gaps.
no-cost, high-quality, and diverse postsecondary pathways.
David Troutman discusses how more (and better)
longitudinal data can inform policymakers in their quest
to reduce success gaps, and outlines ways the federal
government can incentivize states to collect, link,
report, and act on such data.

PAGE 6
Paving the Path
to Debt-Free
College
TICAS believes we must strive for a future where all students can earn a four-year degree at a public
college without needing to take on debt. Covering tuition alone — and especially doing so only for
community colleges, where other costs of attendance can be more burdensome than tuition itself
— will not truly move the needle on affordability (or sufficiently increase completion rates). To do so,
federal policymakers must fully address the “affordability gap” that remains after federal and state aid
is applied toward the total cost of attending a public college.

To build this debt-free future for all students, the federal government and states must work together.
Via such a partnership, the federal government should send new funding to states to equip them
to make sustainable and equitable investments in public institutions, with a focus on historically
underfunded institutions such as community colleges, regional public universities, Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, and Minority-Serving Institutions. Through this funding — and in tandem
with state investments — policymakers can reduce costs, with the goal of eliminating students’ need
to borrow to earn a four-year degree from any public institution.

A well-designed partnership must be just that: a partnership. Each state has its own higher education
ecosystem, and a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. By accounting for the wide variation across
states and taking a cooperative design approach, federal lawmakers can build a system that has a
higher likelihood of uptake and more enthusiastic long-term buy-in from state policymakers.

INTRODUCTION | PAGE 7
 02 State and Federal
Partnerships for
College Affordability:
Assessing the Options
BY: JENNIFER A. DELANEY AND WILLIAM R. DOYLE

Higher education is a key driver of economic mobility in the

United States (Chetty et al., 2017). Both state and federal
governments benefit from an educated workforce and
the increased tax collections from those employed with
postsecondary degrees. Society benefits from having a well-
educated citizenry that helps to ensure a well-functioning
democracy, civic engagement, and increased voting rates
(McMahon, 2009, 2021; McMahon & Delaney, 2021).

PAGE 8
Higher education provides considerable additional none have come to fruition (Tandberg & Anderson, 2020;
benefits such as improvements in health, charitable Deming, 2017). For example, America’s College Promise,
giving, volunteerism, as well as reduced crime and which would have established free community college
incarceration rates (Ma et al., 2019; McMahon, 2009, nationwide using federal funds and a 20 percent phased-
2021). For individuals, the returns to a postsecondary in state match, was proposed in 2021 by President Biden,
credential are substantial (Chetty et al., 2017; but has not been enacted (Whitford, 2021).
Oreopoulous & Petronijevic, 2013). As compared to
individuals with only a high school credential, four-year
college graduates are more likely to be employed and Since 1991–92, tuition
make on average $1 million more in wages over their and fees at public four-year
lifetime; individuals who obtain an associate’s degree
earn about $325,000 more (Abel & Deitz, 2014).
colleges has increased
2.58-fold and public two-
Increasing college prices are a barrier to college access
and success. Net prices, the amount that students
year college prices rose
pay to attend college after taking grants into account, 1.65-fold after accounting
have outpaced inflation in both the two- and four-year for inflation.
sectors. Since 1991–92, tuition and fees at public four-
year colleges has increased 2.58-fold and public two- COLLEGE BOARD, 2021
year college prices rose 1.65-fold after accounting for
inflation (College Board, 2021). Higher prices have put There is a long history of federal-state partnerships for
college out of reach for many. These price increases and higher education in the U.S. These types of partnership
the rapid pace of their expansion have also contributed were critical to the development of state student aid.
to unprecedented student debt levels with outstanding The 1992 Leveraging Education Assistance Partnership
debt surpassing $1.6 trillion (Leukhina, 2020). (LEAP) in its initial iteration offered a one-to-one federal
match for state investment in need-based aid. This
Federal and state governments share responsibility program began in the 1972 Higher Education Act (HEA)
for making college affordable. States provide funding reauthorization as the State Student Incentive Grant
for public colleges, which helps to keep tuition lower (SSIG), but has not been funded since 2010. The 1998
than it might otherwise be. States also fund financial Special Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership
aid programs, which help to lower the prices charged (SLEAP) provided similar incentives matching one
to students (Toutkoushian & Shafiq, 2010). The federal federal dollar for every two state dollars for need-based
government provides need-based grants to increase aid in states using LEAP funds. In 2008, SLEAP was
affordability, and also provides loans1 and tax credits replaced with the Grants for Access and Persistence
which help students attend. (GAP) program (Dziesinski, 2022; Carey & Palmer,
2021). LEAP included a maintenance of effort (MOE)
Recently, state and federal efforts to ensure that college provision to compel states to maintain prior spending
is affordable have been in parallel, not the result of levels of need-based aid (at a minimum, the average
joint federal-state programs. This is in contrast to level of the previous three years). This provision helped
joint federal-state programs in many other important to ensure that states would match federal funds and
areas such as health care and transportation. While not treat the program as a pass-through.2 A MOE was
there have been many calls for renewed federal-state also used with the College Access Challenge Grant
partnerships and proposals to redesign federal and state program that was last funded in 2014 (U.S. Department
responsibilities for funding higher education, of Education, n.d.).

1
Some forms of federal student aid could be considered a federal-state partnership, but this brief is focused on state support for higher education and these types of programs are
beyond the scope of the brief. Most federal student aid programs function as vouchers that can be taken to any institution, public or private, which makes them functionally different from
a true partnership that combines federal and state funds. Some loan repayment plans, like income-dependent repayment, also transfer federal benefits to borrowers on a delayed
timeline after college attendance, but typically do not operate in partnership with states.
2
There was also a proportional enrollment provision for the allocation of LEAP funds across states.

ASSESSING THE OPTIONS | PAGE 9

 The 1972 HEA reauthorization that created SSIG (later 2014). While these MOE provisions were effective, they
LEAP) also created the Basic Educational Opportunity were limited in scope. For example, MOE provisions
Grant program (later Pell) to provide direct federal in ARRA 2009 only applied to state appropriations to
funding to students from low-income backgrounds. institutions and not student aid. As a result, student
These programs reflected a vision of federal and state aid was cut by most states during the Great Recession
efforts working in tandem, with states ensuring low (Delaney, 2014).
tuition at public institutions, and the federal government
providing additional direct grant funding to students
who need more assistance. When LEAP was defunded, For students from low-
the loss of federal matching dollars closed a number of income backgrounds,
need-based student aid programs in the states. In 2011,
LEAP-specific need-based financial aid programs closed
the odds of college
in Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, attendance are shaped by
North Carolina, and Virginia (Dziesinski, 2022). Other the state where they live.
states with LEAP-funded need-based aid programs did
not offer alternative need-based grant aid to residents.
Concerningly, the end of LEAP ended all need-based Today we have a need for a new federal-state
student aid in Georgia, Mississippi, Nebraska, New partnership. Currently we have vast inequities in
Hampshire, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Only college access by state. In 2019–20, eight states
two of these states—Nebraska and Utah—restarted provided nearly 70% (68.6%) of all state need-based
need-based aid programs within a year (Dziesinski, nationally (NASSGAP, 2021). Tuition and required fees
2022). Despite calls to reauthorize LEAP, these long- at public four year colleges vary from over $16,000
running federal matching programs are currently in New Hampshire to $7,300 in North Carolina (De

dormant (Carey & Palmer, 2021). Brey et al., 2021). For students from low-income
backgrounds, the odds of college attendance are
shaped by the state where they live. While there is a
Despite the absence of an ongoing federal-state
national interest in expanding college opportunities,
partnership, the idea of a partnership has remained
states have not been able to meet this challenge on
salient and there have been a few short-term, temporary
their own. A new federal-state partnership can work
partnerships that emerged during the Great Recession
to guarantee college affordability for all, regardless
and COVID-19 global pandemic. Federal stimulus in
of the state where a student resides. The federal
these short-term, temporary partnerships has been
government is uniquely positioned to help to resolve
shown to both bolster and shape state behavior toward
some of the difficulties that states face in providing
higher education (Delaney, 2014). Past iterations of
sufficient and stable funding for higher education,
federal stimulus programs during economic downturns
although states should continue to have primary
include the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
responsibility for the provision of higher education.
of 2009 (ARRA) and the Higher Education Emergency
Relief Fund (HEERF) that was a part of the Coronavirus
In this brief, we consider some of the structural
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020 (CARES barriers facing state support for higher education and
Act). Federal stimulus funds during both the Great evaluate four recent proposals to improve affordability
Recession and the COVID-19 global pandemic were for students and families. We evaluate these proposals
carefully structured using MOE provisions so the federal using two important principles as guideposts:
funds did not become a pass-through, but instead (1) states should be encouraged to maintain their
preserved state support for higher education. While support for higher education, and (2) some of the
waivers were available, with ARRA 2009, states typically structural challenges that limit state support for higher
followed the rules of the MOE provisions (Delaney, education, like counter-cyclical funding patterns and

PAGE 10
instability, should be addressed. We begin by discussing DIVERSITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION
underlying features of the higher education finance ACROSS STATES
system and cost challenges faced by the sector. Then, Every state provides funds for its public institutions
we discuss the diversity of higher education systems of higher education. However, there are at least 50
and funding models across the U.S. states. Next, we different approaches across 50 states. Seen through
consider structural barriers faced by higher education the lens of keeping college affordable for students and
within state budgets. Finally, we evaluate four current families, one of the primary roles of state funding is
proposals for federal-state partnerships. to keep tuition lower than it would be without state
support. The implementation of this idea varies across
HOW HIGHER EDUCATION states. Some states provide ample support for their
IS FINANCED IN THE U.S. public institutions and students pay low tuition.
Cost sharing is assumed within the U.S. system of Other states provide little support, and net prices
higher education with the burden for supporting for students are high.
higher education shared between taxpayers and
the individuals who attend institutions (Johnstone In this section we discuss five aspects of diversity of
& Marcucci, 2010).3 Over time there have been higher education across the U.S. states. While there
differences in the relative burden borne by the are other important differences across states, we chose
government and individuals, but we are in a period to focus on these five aspects since they are important
where higher education is mostly seen as an individual for understanding how the structure of a federal-state
benefit and costs have been structured reflecting this partnership would be felt differently in varying states:
idea such that a greater burden has been placed on
students and families. The U.S. system also assumes • Institution vs. student support
that there will be intergenerational transfers of wealth • Differences in the use of local funding
to attend college. Increasingly, as more parents are • Universal vs. targeted support
struggling with their own college debt and have • Infrastructure mix
minimal savings, the intergenerational transfer of • State effort in the level of support
wealth has not occurred, placing a larger burden on
students to tap into hoped-for future earnings by Institution vs. Student Support. There are two
borrowing to attend college. primary conceptual models for how states fund
higher education. Either states support institutions
COST INCREASES OVER TIME in the hopes that tuition will remain low for students
The cost of providing higher education has typically and families, or they use student aid to support
increased more quickly than inflation and many other students directly. Both models have the potential to
goods and services (Archibald and Feldman, 2011). yield affordable college options. However, there is
Whether states will be able to maintain increases typically little coordination between funding streams
in funding indefinitely is an open question, and an for appropriations and student aid, and in most states
important structural challenge facing state support for these funding levels are set by separate governing
higher education. One of the key issues for both states bodies and policymakers. In addition, there are
and the federal government is how to keep pace with very few policy levers to compel institutions to use
the rising cost of higher education. On a per-student, state support to keep tuition low. While some states
inflation-adjusted basis, most states spend the same or directly set tuition either through the state board or
more on higher education than they did in the 1980s, legislature, many states only have indirect mechanisms
but today state spending constitutes a smaller portion like public opinion and board appointment processes
of overall institutional revenues (SHEEO, 2022). Higher as tools to reign in tuition levels. Direct state support
education is a human capital intensive sector and these of institutions does not always yield low prices for
cost challenges will continue. students (Webber, 2017). In voucherized systems that

3
Other parties are also involved, like the philanthropic sector, but not discussed in this brief to maintain a focus on the primary sources of revenue for institutions.

ASSESSING THE OPTIONS | PAGE 11

 use student aid as a primary means for distributing state programs that are earmarked for students attending
support, states use both large-scale need- and merit- private institutions (as is done in Massachusetts). The
based aid. With merit-aid systems, there are concerns scope of the community college sector in each state
about both access and equity since scholarships in also matters for both access and affordability. Some
these programs are typically awarded to more affluent states (like California) have designed systems to have
students (Heller & Marin, 2002, 2004; Heller, 2004). large community college systems that assume the ability
Many states use a mix of both direct support to to transfer into four-year institutions. Other states (like
institutions and student financial aid with large variance Vermont) have few community colleges and place little
in the relative proportions of each type of funding. reliance on the sector as either a low-cost option or a
Because the interaction of tuition levels and student pathway for transfer.
aid sets the net price for students and families, it is
important to consider both state general appropriations State Effort in the Level of Support. States have
for institutions and student aid programs to understand also followed different trajectories in their funding
affordability. for higher education, with some states maintaining
low appropriations for higher education and minimal
Differences in the Use of Local Funding. There is student aid programs over the last half-century, while
also a great deal of variance across states in the use others have consistently spent more. These variations
of local funding, particularly for community colleges. in levels of appropriations, even when adjusted per-FTE,
Some states (like Nevada) support their community shape the relative success, scope, and stability of the
colleges entirely through state funding. Other states higher education sector across states.
(like Illinois) are heavily dependent on local funding
and their community college funding systems closely In addition to these important differences across
reflect the structure of K-12 schools that are reliant on states in their contexts and the tools used to promote
local property taxes for support. Typically, the greater affordability, there are shared structural challenges that
reliance on local property tax the more regressivity higher education faces in each state. These structural
there is in the system. Variations in the role of local challenges are reviewed in the next section.
support (and if local support exists at all) are also
important to consider when evaluating state effort to STRUCTURAL CHALLENGES IN
support higher education. U.S. HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING
Higher education funding faces a number of challenges
Universal vs. Targeted Support. There is an inherent that would benefit from federal intervention. We have
trade-off between universal programs and targeted identified five primary structural challenges to building
programs when allocating state resources for higher and maintaining an effective state role for funding
education. For example, low tuition benefits everyone higher education. The first four areas can be thought of
– high, middle, and low-income families – but is not as being related problems since state funding for higher
very efficient since those who could afford to pay for education is strongly cyclical, and enrollment surges
college are subsidized. Highly targeted need-based aid in downturns can exacerbate shortfalls. However, we
directs resources to those who need it the most, but
discuss each area in turn for clarity:
administrative barriers, complexity, and application
burdens can prevent access. • State budgeting features
• The strong influence of the business
Infrastructure Mix. Higher education infrastructure in cycle on higher education funding
each state also matters. In particular, the mix between
• Volatility of state support
public and private institutions can shape affordability.
Some states rely on their private institutions and • The countercyclical nature of funding needs
provide either direct support to institutions (as is the • The misalignment of timelines between
case in Michigan) or support through student aid universities and states4

4
Prior literature has also explored the role of politics in higher education funding decisions (see for instance, McLendon et al., 2009; McLendon et al., 2005; Nicholson-Crotty & Meier,
2003). While this work is valuable, we exclude it here to maintain a focus on the structural barriers facing higher education.

PAGE 12
Each challenge is discussed in this section to make Balanced budget requirements are almost universal
the case for federal intervention. Traditional framing of across the U.S. All states except Vermont have a
higher education finance either ignores or undervalues balanced budget requirement and, in most years,
the fundamental structures of the systems that provide Vermont behaves as though it is subject to this
public support for higher education. Attention to requirement. While levels of taxation are a choice
these features and their intractable nature provides a made by states, this combination of higher education’s
rationale for federal support of higher education. role as a discretionary spending category and
balanced budget rules make it almost inevitable
State Budgeting Features. Inherent components of that discretionary spending categories, and higher
state budgeting put higher education at a structural education in particular, will be cut during economic
disadvantage for sustained and stable funding. downturns (Gamage, 2010; Poterba, 1995). Higher
These state budgeting features do not reflect the education is often one of the first budget areas on
value that higher education offers to states or the the chopping block in challenging economic times
role that the sector plays in ensuring both a highly (Humphreys, 2000).
educated workforce and a well-functioning democracy
(McMahon, 2009, 2021; McMahon & Delaney, 2021; Higher Education Is Strongly Influenced by the
Newfield, 2016). There are two primary features of Business Cycle. Generally, state budgets are strongly
state budgets that make higher education particularly tied to the business cycle. Mirroring this pattern, state
vulnerable to cuts during economic downturns: higher budgeting for higher education is strongly influenced
education’s position as a discretionary budget category by the business cycle (Gamage, 2010; Kane et al.,
and state-balanced budget requirements. 2003). While there are some differences across states
due to differing tax bases, in general, the pattern of
cuts and increases to higher education follow the

On average, higher business cycle closely creating a “roller coaster ride”

for higher education appropriations.
education represents 9.6%
of total state budgets.
This poses challenges for institutions of higher
education, especially public institutions that are
Nationally, it is the third dependent on state support for operations. If we

largest component of consider the share of institutional budgets that are

derived from state funds, there are vast differences
total state spending. across sectors with flagship and selective institutions
typically being the least reliant on state funding.
NASBO, 2019
Regional, open-access, less selective institutions, and
community colleges typically have a larger share of
State spending on higher education generally falls their budgets derived from state funds. This occurs
into the discretionary part of state budgets. As more both with general appropriations for operating and
items in state budgets have become non-discretionary, with student aid, since less selective institutions tend to
due to court mandates or federal matching programs serve students that are more reliant on state student
such as Medicaid, discretionary parts of state budgets aid. Because of differences by institution in reliance on
have shrunk in both number of categories and the state funds, the impacts of state budget downturns are
overall proportion of state spending. In most states, typically felt more strongly by less selective institutions
higher education is the largest remaining discretionary that serve students with greater financial need.
spending category. On average, higher education
represents 9.6 percent of total state budgets. Volatility of State Support for Higher Education.
Nationally, it is the third largest component of total The result of these structural features of state budgets
state spending (NASBO, 2019). is a very volatile funding environment for higher

ASSESSING THE OPTIONS | PAGE 13

 education (Lacy, et al., 2017; Li, 2017; Webber, 2017). budget times, states increase higher education funding
In addition, the intensity of volatility has both increased at a faster rate than other state budget categories.
and become more widespread over time (Doyle et Conversely, during economic downturns, states cut
al., 2021; Gamage, 2010; Webber, 2017). The volatility higher education appropriations more severely and at a
observed in the higher education sector stands in faster rate than other state budget categories. Evidence
contrast to the more stable levels of funding seen in from prior literature indicates that the balance wheel
other state budget categories such as K-12 funding. pattern is lopsided with smaller increases during years
Because of these structural features, our expectation
is that volatility in state support for higher education
will continue unless structural features are addressed
or new actors (like the federal government) provide Institutions may also be
increased support for higher education. more likely to emphasize
Operating in a volatile environment has important
more predictable revenue
implications for institutional behavior, since institutions streams, like tuition,
are understandably risk averse. An unpredictable
environment can undermine institutions’ ability to
which could lead to higher
contribute to the public good (Doyle et al., 2021). tuition rates and more
With unreliable state funding, risk-averse institutions out-of-state enrollments.
increasingly engage in activities designed to increase
revenues (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2009). Institutions JAQUETTE & CURS, 2015,
CHESLOCK & GIANNESCHI, 2008A
may also be more likely to emphasize more predictable
revenue streams, like tuition, which could lead to
higher tuition rates and more out-of-state enrollments
(Jaquette & Curs, 2015; Cheslock & Gianneschi, where state budgets grew and larger cuts during periods
2008a). This also has the potential to shape degree of contraction, which has resulted in a general ratcheting
and program offerings with a preference for academic down of higher education support by states (Delaney
programs that can guarantee a steady stream of & Doyle, 2007, 2011, 2018). In addition, the length
revenue. For instance, a lucrative MBA program of time to recovery following a cut in state general
may be created as opposed to a revenue-neutral appropriations (returning to a previous higher funding
undergraduate program that fosters democratic norms, level) has been expanding. In the 1980s, recoveries
even though the latter program could generate much were fairly certain and quick. This pattern slowed in the
larger positive social externalities (Jaquette, 2019). Lack 1990s, and recoveries were both rare and had long time
of knowledge about future levels of funding can make spans in the 2000s (Doyle & Delaney, forthcoming).
planning for staffing levels difficult, which could lead
to difficulties hiring and retaining personnel (Delaney, Because higher education has the ability to raise
2016; Massy, 2016). outside revenue, it is a politically attractive area
for cuts during economic downturns. This outside
Higher Education as a Balance Wheel. We have revenue stream is the sector’s ability to charge tuition
observed a pattern that higher education plays the to students and families, and is a type of revenue
role of the “balance wheel” in state budgets (Delaney that does not exist for most other state budget
& Doyle, 2007, 2011, 2014, 2018; Hovey, 1999). This areas. During difficult economic years, state cuts
has made higher education funding more volatile than can therefore lead to large tuition increases. At the
other state budget categories. The balance wheel same time that students and families are generally
pattern describes differing funding patterns at different facing economic constrictions, tuition prices are often
moments of the business cycle. During prosperous increased thereby limiting access to college.

PAGE 14
The Countercyclical Nature of Higher Education appropriations to institutions and student aid programs
Funding and Demand. Until the COVID-19 global are cut, further limiting assistance available to students.
pandemic, enrollment patterns were also predictable This confluence results in an environment that has
in higher education and closely followed the the potential to degrade educational quality (Dynarski
business cycle (Nguyen et al., 2021; National Student 2020; Orphan, 2020).
Clearinghouse Research Center, 2022). In fact, one
of the strongest predictors of enrollment levels is This countercyclical pattern is ripe for federal intervention
unemployment rates (Barr & Turner, 2013; Betts & due to the benefits that upskilling and retraining bring to
McFarland, 1995; Humphries, 2000). For individuals the economy by speeding up economic recoveries and
one of the best options during an economic downturn, reducing the duration of recessions (Bipartisan Policy
especially when facing a job loss, is to return to Center 2020; Dynarski, 2020; The Institute for College
higher education to retrain or upskill. The result is a Access and Success 2019).
general pattern of increasing enrollments, especially
at community colleges, during challenging economic Misalignment of Timelines. University timelines are
times. This results in a countercyclical pattern whereby often derived from lofty institutional missions that focus
institutions see enrollment increases and most need on the generation, transmission, and preservation of
funding during moments when states are most likely to knowledge in perpetuity for the benefit of humanity.
cut higher education budgets. This pattern is exacerbated By contrast, political and business cycles are typically
at community colleges since state support for this sector short. Political cycles que off election cycles of two,
faces more volatility in state appropriations than four- four, or six years (Ballotpedia, n.d.; U.S. Senate, n.d.).
year institutions, further amplifying these countercyclical Business cycles are likewise short with an average full
challenges (Doyle et al., 2021). business cycle lasting 4.7 years (Keng, 2018; NBER,
2020). Between 1854 and 2009, there were 33 business
Typically, the effects of economic downturns both draw cycles in the U.S. with the average recession lasting
more students into college and, due to recessionary- for 1.5 years (NBER, 2020). The profound differences
driven dips in incomes, allow more students to qualify in the time horizons of higher education and either
for larger amounts of need-based student aid. This puts political or business cycles amplifies volatility for higher
pressure on institutions to find additional resources education institutions. While not a unique challenge
to support growing enrollments and to increase since other state budgeting areas also struggle with
need-based student financial aid programs. However, the misalignment of timelines between their work
recessionary periods are times when typically both and political and business cycles, this issue is more

ASSESSING THE OPTIONS | PAGE 15

 pronounced for higher education given the extended ANALYSIS OF TRADE-OFFS IN
time horizon of institutions and how these timelines
FEDERAL-STATE PLANS FOR
align with their missions. For example, faculty hiring
COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY
can take many years in higher education. In addition,
the length of time most students are enrolled for Given the challenges facing state funding, demands

a degree exceeds most political cycles. A federal- for federal action have only grown louder over time.
Multiple solutions, most of them focused on very
state partnership may not be able to fully resolve
low or no tuition, have been proposed. Our goal in
the misalignment of timelines, but adding stability to
this section is to offer a typology of different possible
the funding streams for higher education would help
federal-state partnerships and to discuss the trade-
institutions navigate this structural challenge.
offs inherent in each. There’s no perfect answer to
the question of how to design a joint federal-state
THE NEED FOR INTERVENTION
program. The goal of this analysis is instead to provide
TO REMEDY STRUCTURAL a clear picture of the winners and losers from different
CHALLENGES approaches, and to discuss the trade-offs inherent
The ability to receive training beyond high school yields in each proposal.
immense personal and social benefits, and there is a
national interest ensuring access to higher education
both across states and in all types of budgetary
Any plan that increases
environments. There is also a national interest ensuring affordability reduces
that opportunities for postsecondary education are
more consistent across cohorts of students.
revenues collected
from students.
Higher education’s position as a large discretionary
spending category combined with balanced-budget
constraints in the states has created a context by which Revenues at public institutions can be broadly thought
of as having two sources: government and students.
higher education is strongly influenced by the business
Government sources of support include direct
cycle. This results in immense volatility in state support
subsidies to institutions that allow tuition to be lower,
for higher education. Due to its role as a balance wheel
state student financial aid, tax programs, and federal
for state budgets, the sector is unlikely to achieve student financial aid. Revenues from students are those
predictable funding if it is primarily reliant on states students must pay on their own, most notably tuition.
for support. The counter-cyclical nature of funding Tuition revenues can be paid directly from students or
is exacerbated by the nature of both postsecondary can come from loans that must be repaid. All of the
proposed plans for increasing college affordability rely
enrollments and student needs. In addition, the
on shifting the share of costs from tuition revenues
misalignment of timelines between higher education
from students to the government, with different plans
missions, and political and business cycles further involving differing amounts of funding from federal and
entrenches these systemic problems. Some have state governments.
argued that the reason for states’ struggles is simply
a matter of changes in legislators’ values regarding Any plan that increases affordability reduces revenues

higher education (Taylor, 2022), but values play out collected from students. Plans can reduce net prices
through some combination of reducing tuition or
within structures and the structures facing the higher
increasing student financial aid. A plan can reduce net
education sector are ones that will continue ratcheting
prices for students equally or differentially depending on
down state support. Policies that reinvigorate student characteristics. So, for instance, a need-based
investment in higher education, lower prices charged plan lowers net prices more for students from low-
to students and families, and buffers against volatility in income backgrounds. A plan without any means-testing
college funding are vital to the future of our nation. lowers prices for all students. While universal plans are

PAGE 16
politically popular and easy to communicate as “free Below, we discuss each of these approaches and the
college for all,” these plans also share the downside of likely trade-offs involved in each approach.
being regressive, as high-income students will benefit as
much as students from low-income backgrounds, and Replace Students with the Federal Government
because high-income students are more likely to attend as a Revenue Source. One solution that has been
college, the incidence of universal programs tend to promoted is for the federal government to cover all
direct more overall benefits to wealthier individuals. or most tuition revenues for public colleges in all
states. In this case, the federal government would
In addition to the share of funding apportioned to take over some, or all, of the current role that
students and government, the overall level of revenues students and families play by paying tuition. The
collected needs to be considered. Every college upside to this approach is its simplicity: tuition would
affordability plan does two things: change the overall
be free or much lower for all students in all states. In
level of revenues collected, and change the revenue
addition, overall revenues per student would remain
source. A college affordability plan could lower overall
at current levels.
revenues by charging low or no tuition, which would
decrease the amount charged to students but lower
Examples of this type of program took off during
overall revenues and hinder institutions’ ability to
the Democratic primary prior to the 2020
operate (or erode educational quality). Alternatively, a
presidential election. These proposals were later
college affordability plan might increase overall revenues.
Every college affordability plan must then balance these developed into proposed legislation. While the
two priorities – how overall revenues will be affected, underlying structures of these plans all locked in
and which revenue sources will be changed. current spending levels, there were slightly different
approaches to thinking about the state role.
There have been policy proposals that would involve Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Pramila
direct federal funding of institutions, without involving Jayapal proposed a legislative version of Sander’s
states as partners (Carey, 2020). We consider these campaign proposal in 2021. Under this approach,
proposals outside the scope of our analysis, given up to four years of college would become tuition
our focus on the relationship between states (not free for students. States would pay 25%, and the
institutions) and the federal government when it comes federal government would pay 75% of the price of
to funding higher education. bringing college tuition to zero (H.R.2730 - 117th
Congress, 2021). Senator Warren proposed a
In our view, there are four different frameworks for how similar policy plan, but it has not yet been codified
the federal government can work with the states to in a legislative proposal (Warren, 2019).
lower prices charged to students:
The downside to this approach is that it rewards
1. Replace students with the federal states that have underinvested in higher education
government as a revenue source. and it penalizes states that have invested heavily.
2. Offer a flat subsidy to replace student As the figure below shows, Vermont spends $7,370
revenues at the state level and include per student, while collecting $15,436 per student in
a mandate for free or low tuition (the tuition revenues. By contrast, New Mexico spends
basic premise of Biden’s America’s $15,134 per student, while collecting $3,685 per
College Promise plan). student in tuition revenues (SHEEO, 2022). Under
this plan, the federal government would spend
3. Incentivize state student financial aid generously in Vermont, while providing less than a
funding through a matching program.
quarter of that amount to New Mexico, even though
4. Incentivize state appropriations policymakers in New Mexico made extensive prior
through a matching program. efforts to lower college prices.

ASSESSING THE OPTIONS | PAGE 17

 FIGURE 1:
Per-Student Revenues from State Appropriations and Tuition, 50 States, FY 1980-2021

$20,000
$10,000
$0

$20,000
$10,000
$0

$20,000
$10,000
$0

$20,000
$10,000
$0

$20,000
$10,000
$0

$20,000
$10,000
$0

$20,000
$10,000
$0

$20,000
$10,000
$0

$20,000
$10,000
$0

$20,000
$10,000
$0
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Spending Type Education appropriations excluding federal stimulus Net tuition and fee revenue

Note: Authors’ calculations based on SHEEO’s State Higher Education Finance, FY 2021. bit.ly/3JhS7n2 Education Appropriations
Excluding Federal Stimulus includes all state and local funds provided for both direct appropriations and student aid for each
state. States with highest education appropriations revenues are listed first. Net tuition and fee revenue includes
all tuition revenue collected from students. All amounts are per-FTE enrollment and inflation adjusted using the CPI-U.

PAGE 18
Such a plan would also require a MOE provision to existing per-student tuition revenues, while in other
mandate that states maintain their level of spending at, states it might be considerably less than the amount
or near, what it was prior to the introduction of the new already collected in tuition. In California, a plan like this
college affordability plan. This provision would “lock in” would increase tuition revenues by $4,500, while in
existing differences in state funding, meaning that low- Michigan it would decrease tuition revenues by nearly
spending states such as Vermont and New Hampshire $8,000 (SHEEO, 2022).
would continue spending little, while high-spending
states such as New Mexico would be compelled to
maintain their high levels of per-student spending. The upside to this approach
Stability of funding would be a considerable upside to
is that all states are treated
this approach, although it would come at the cost of equally: no state receives
maintaining per-FTE spending inequality across the
states. Given states’ historic unwillingness to raise
more, or less, money based
revenues during recessions, such a plan would also on past histories of funding.
most likely need to include a “safe harbor” provision
under which the federal government would step in if
The upside to this approach is that all states are
states face an economic downturn that would make it
treated equally: no state receives more, or less, money
difficult to maintain previous levels of funding.
based on past histories of funding. The key downside
to this approach is the likelihood that the states with
The other key question for such plans is how they
highest tuition revenues would be the least likely
might expect both federal and state funding to increase
to participate, meaning that students in the most
over time. It is well documented that increases in
expensive states might not benefit from this proposal.
higher education costs exceed the inflation rate over
The plan could be made generous enough that all
time, and any plan that involves a MOE provision must
but the states with the most expensive tuitions would
also account for how costs rise over time (Archibald &
benefit from participating, and it’s likely that this would
Feldman, 2021).
be necessary in order to ensure a high proportion of
Offer a Flat Subsidy to Replace Student Revenues enrolled students benefit.
at the State Level, with a Mandate for Free or Low
Tuition. In contrast to the above approach, the federal A key question for this type of plan, similar to the
government could attempt to lower tuition by offering “full coverage” plan described above, is how MOE and
states a flat, per-student subsidy, with the requirement change over time in state funding would be handled.
that the state then offer free or very low tuition at
public colleges. This is the basic framework used in Incentivize State Financial Aid Funding. Many
the America’s College Promise Act. Proposed in 2021 plans to improve college affordability involve some
by President Biden, America’s College Promise would form of matching funds between federal and state
have established free community college nationwide governments. The common theme with these plans
using federal funds and a phased-in state match that is that the federal government will provide additional
would top out at 20% after five years. For instance, funding in response to state efforts, typically either
the federal government might offer $7,000 (about state spending for financial aid or appropriations. Some
the national average of per-student tuition revenues) plans combine both financial aid and appropriations.
for every student enrolled at public colleges in a
given state. If the state accepts the offer, they would Most states have some form of student financial
substitute the amount of federal funds for collected aid, either need-based or merit-based. The federal
tuition revenues. In some states, the flat amount government could provide matching funds to states
offered by the federal government might exceed based on states’ spending on financial aid. For instance,

ASSESSING THE OPTIONS | PAGE 19

 the federal government could offer to spend four For instance, some states with high levels of enrollment
dollars for every dollar that states spend on student in private institutions might want to include funding
financial aid. State plans could vary, but might be for attendance at private colleges. As the example of
broadly based on family income—for instance, eligibility Medicaid shows, striking a balance between flexibility
might be limited only to those whose families make and ensuring that the goals of the program are met is a
less than $100,000 per year, or the state could use a difficult challenge. Another downside to this plan is the
methodology similar to the federal methodology for difficulty that states and institutions have in planning
need-based aid (Doyle, 2013). for the number of students that would be eligible for
and apply for their financial aid programs.
The benefit of this approach is its flexibility. Instead of
offering an “all-or-nothing” deal, this approach would This plan would have substantial benefits in combating
reward states for their existing efforts to reduce the volatility in funding, as students applying for need-
amount charged to students, without penalizing states. based aid would drive funding, and states with more
The downside to this approach is that states may still students meeting their criteria would receive bigger
be reluctant to participate, even at relatively generous increases in federal funding. This design would require
terms from the federal government. the federal funding for this program functioned as
a quasi-entitlement like the Pell Grant. Mechanisms
Examples of this type of program can be found in to combat countercyclical funding are an important
proposed legislation from U.S. Senators Reed and element of this type of program.
Collins along with a proposal from the Bipartisan
Policy Center (Aborn & Akabas, 2022; Reed & Collins, In the past, programs such as LEAP provided a modest
2021, S.2054, 2021). It could also be done through a level of federal matching to student financial aid
reinvigoration of the LEAP program, as proposed by programs. It’s likely that these related programs helped
Carey and Palmer (2021). While all of these proposals to drive the growth of state student financial aid in the
contain additional elements, we discuss only the federal 1970s and 1980s. This approach builds on the proven
match of student aid dollars here for conceptual clarity. track record of a prior federal-state matching program
(Reed & Collins, 2021).
As with appropriations, states differ tremendously in
their commitment to financial aid in general and need- Incentivize State Appropriations. The federal
based aid in particular. In New York, the state provides government could also create a matching program
about $1,600 per student in need-based funding, while for state appropriations. This could be in addition to
South Dakota provides $7 per student (NASSGAP, or instead of a matching program for state student
2021). While both states would benefit equally from an financial aid. A recent example was presented by the
incentive-based program, students in New York would Bipartisan Policy Center. In their model, a program
clearly continue to be more generously funded from would provide matching funding on a four-to-one basis
the state’s existing programs. The goal of these plans for any new spending (above recent averages) from the
would be to incentivize more student-aid funding from state (Aborn & Akabas, 2022).
low-spending states such as South Dakota, hopefully
closing this gap. This proposal could have many benefits, chief among
them is its “rainy-day” provision, which could help
The other key issue with this approach would be the smooth out funding for institutions over time by
implementation challenge of creating rules that would providing countercyclical funding. This provision
allow sufficient state flexibility in designing financial aid would require that states take some of the federal
systems while still maintaining a need-based element. money and place it in a fund, which could be used
States have different enrollment infrastructures which during a downturn. Spending these rainy-day funds
may entail different designs for financial aid programs. during a recession would count as new funding under

PAGE 20
the provisions of this plan and would be matched by differences across states in the amount that the federal
federal spending. Such a program would differ from a government would spend, and how the plan addresses
MOE provision. Instead of locking in current funding stability of funding over time. Below, we summarize the
levels, this proposal would reward states that did more findings from our comparison.
to fund their system of higher education throughout
the business cycle. • Replacing students with the federal government as
a revenue source (Sanders Proposal) would result
As examples of states that have been on very different in unequal funding across states. The largest amounts
paths, we can compare California and Louisiana. of funding would go to states with the highest tuition,
Between fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2021, California while states with low tuition would receive the least.
increased per-student spending from about $9,000 By guaranteeing free or low tuition, this plan would
to about $12,000, a 30% increase over the decade. unambiguously lower prices for students.
In Louisiana, by contrast, funding went from $6,500
to $5,000 per student, a 23 percent decrease in the • Offering a flat subsidy (America’s College Promise)
same decade (SHEEO 2022). Under the provisions would offer all states the same amount of federal
of this plan, students in California would have gained funding to reduce tuition to provide free community
an additional $12,000, easily enough to cover tuition college (and in some proposals offer free college at
revenues, while students in Louisiana would not have four-year institutions). With the flat rate, it is unclear
received any additional funding. Of course, under the how many states might participate. It is also not
provisions of this plan, policymakers in Louisiana would clear how much federal funding is enough to get a
have had much more incentive to adequately fund sufficient number of states to participate.
their colleges and universities.
• Matching financial aid spending (Reed & Collins
From the perspective of college affordability, the key PASS Act) would function a lot like the SSIG/LEAP
question for an appropriations matching program by offering matching funds for need-based aid. The
would be whether it would sufficiently lower tuition. program would be a net benefit for students, but
Research by Webber and others has shown that institutions would not necessarily benefit depending
changes in state appropriations do not translate one- on their enrollment mix, as a consumer-driven
to-one into tuition decreases, but instead for every system might drive students into one sector or
$1,000 increase in state support for an institution of to one geographic area of a state. While offering
higher education, tuition decreases on average by $318 targeted aid should increase the efficiency of the
(Webber, 2017). To ensure that such a plan would result program, depending on state actions, such a plan
in substantially reduced tuition, its would need to be could also lack the clear messaging of a “free
fairly generous. college for all” plan.

SUMMARY: ADDRESSING TRADE-OFFS • Matching appropriations (Bipartisan Policy

The table below summarizes the key features of each Center) would match new state spending that
type of federal-state partnership, across a number of supports institutions 4:1. This proposal would offer
dimensions. Below, we summarize what we view as the a net benefit for institutions, but students would not
key trade-offs inherent in each program. directly receive all of the new appropriations, and
their benefits would depend on institutional pass-
In the first column of the table, we list the basics of through rates, which have been estimated to reduce
each program design. In the subsequent columns, we tuition by only about a third of the amount of new
list features of each plan, including the extent to which spending. Rainy-day provisions in these plans could
tuition revenues are replaced by federal spending, substantially enhance stability of funding over time
overall revenue change likely induced by the plan, by providing countercyclical funding.

ASSESSING THE OPTIONS | PAGE 21

 TABLE 1:
Key Features of Each Federal-State Partnership

Plan Example Tuition funds Overall How different Stability of

replaced by revenue is federal Funding
government change money going Element?
to states?

Replace Sanders All tuition Locks in Large differenc- Maintenance

students with Proposal funds are current es in amount of effort with
the federal replaced by revenues. spent on states. safe harbor
government as the federal No provision provision.
a revenue government. for inflation-
source, with ary cost
a mandate for increases.
free tuition

Offer a flat America’s Depends on Depends on All states are Maintenance

subsidy to College the state. High the state. offered the of effort with
replace student Promise tuition states Some states same amount, safe harbor
revenues at the will not have will see a the actual provision.
state level, with all tuition decrease in amount
a mandate for revenue overall received
free or low replaced. revenues. depends on
tuition state
participation.

Incentivize Reed & Depends on Could result States could all Maintenance
state financial Collins: PASS state efforts in increased receive the of effort
aid funding (Partnerships to increase revenues same amount. provision.
for Afford- financial aid. depending on However, it is
ability and enrollment likely that some
Student levels for states will
Success) Act low-income receive more
students. funding than
others.

Incentivize Bipartisan No direct Could result Resources Creates a

State Policy Center: mechanism in increased distributed on rainy-day fund,
Appropriations A Moderate for replacing revenues for a per-capita and rewards
Alternative tuition funds. institutions, basis. States states when
to Free It would subject to with lower they save and
College depend on an efficiency GDP per capita then spend.
institutional provision. would receive a
“pass-through” larger share of
rates. resources.

PAGE 22
CONCLUSION A plan should have a MOE provision or built-in
We have outlined structural challenges facing state incentives for states to increase support for higher
support for higher education and provided an analysis education. This will ensure that the partnership will
of current proposals for federal-state partnerships. not become a pass-through and will provide real
This has highlighted important differences in program support to sustain or grow investments in
design for both affordability and sustainability. higher education.
Because there are structural challenges inherent
2. The federal role in a partnership should be designed
within state budgets, states, on their own, will not
to address some of the structural challenges that
be able to provide needed support for higher
limit state support for higher education, especially
education to meet national goals. It is only through
countercyclical funding and stability.
federal partnership that some of the structural
challenges can be addressed. Federal funds can help States acting by themselves will not be able to
temper the relationship between state support for solve college affordability problems. A federal-state
higher education and the business cycle. Including partnership is needed to attain substantially lower
countercyclical funding mechanisms will help to ensure college prices for the next generation of students.
college access and will increase the predictability of Past federal-state partnerships—either through long-
support for higher education. standing programs like LEAP or short-term stimulus
Our work has led to two important principles to follow funding—have been successful in providing access
when designing a federal-state partnership: to students and supporting institutions. It is time
1. Any plan should ensure that states cannot respond to reinvigorate or create a new federal-state
to federal spending by lowering their own spending. partnership for higher education.

ASSESSING THE OPTIONS | PAGE 23

 References
Abel, J. R., & Deitz, R. (2014). Do the benefits of college College Board, Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid
still outweigh the costs? Current issues in economics 2021, Figure CP-3.
and finance, 20(3).
De Brey, C., Snyder, T.D., Zhang, A., and Dillow, S.A.
Aborn, M. & Akabas, S. (2022) A Moderate Alternative (2021). Digest of Education Statistics 2021 (NCES
to Free College. Bipartisan Policy Center. https:// 2021-009). National Center for Education Statistics,
bipartisanpolicy.org/download/?file=/wp-content/ Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
uploads/2021/08/EPP_Fed-State-Issue-Brief_RV1.pdf Education. Washington, DC.

Archibald, R. B., & Feldman, D. H. (2011). Why does Delaney, J. A. (2014). The role of state policy in promoting
college cost so much? Oxford University Press. college affordability. The ANNALS of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 655, 56-78.
Barr, A., & Turner, S. E. (2013). Expanding enrollments https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214535898
and contracting state budgets: The effect of
the great recession on higher education. The Delaney, J. A. (2016). The perils of unpredictability: The
ANNALS of the American Academy of Political consequences of uncertainty in state appropriations
and Social Science, 650(1), 168–193. https://doi. for higher education. [Paper presentation]. The
org/10.1177/0002716213500035 Association for the Study of Higher Education,
Columbus, Ohio.
Betts, J., & McFarland, L. (1995). Safe port in a storm: The
impact of labor market conditions on community Delaney, J. A. & Doyle, W. R. (2007). The role of higher
college enrollments. The Journal of Human education in state budgets. In D. E. Heller, & K.
Resources, 30(4), 741-765. 10.2307/146230 M. Shaw (Eds.), State postsecondary education
research: New methods to inform policy and practice
Bipartisan Policy Center. (2020). “A New Course for Higher (p. 55-76). Stylus Publishing.
Education.” https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/new-
higher-ed/ Delaney, J. A. & Doyle, W. R. (2011). State spending on
higher education: Testing the balance wheel over
Carey K. HOW TO SAVE HIGHER EDUCATION: time. Journal of Education Finance, 36(4), 343-368.
A New Deal for America’s sinking colleges. The
Washington monthly. 2020;52(9-10) 30. https:// Delaney, J. A. & Doyle, W. R. (2014). State spending on
washingtonmonthly.com/2020/08/30/how-to-save- higher education capital outlays. Research in Higher
higher-education/ Education. 55(5), 433-466.

Carey, K., & Palmer, I. (January 28, 2021). The Case Delaney, J. A. & Doyle, W. R. (2018). Patterns and volatility
for Quantum LEAP. New America blog. http:// in state funding for higher education, 1951–2006.
newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/case- Teachers College Record, 120(6), 1-42.
quantum-leap/
Doyle, W. R. (2013). A New Partnership: Reshaping the
Cheslock, J. J., & Gianneschi, M. (2008). Replacing state Federal and State Commitment to Need-Based Aid.
appropriations with alternative revenue sources: The Committee for Economic Development.
case of voluntary support. The Journal of Higher
Education, 79(2), 208-229. https://doi.org/10.1353/ Deming, D. J. (2017). Increasing College Completion
jhe.2008.0012 with a Federal Higher Education Matching Grant.
The Hamilton Project. http://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/
Chetty, R., Friedman, J.N., Saez, E., Turner, N., & Yagan, handle/10919/90835
D. (2017). Mobility report cards: The role of colleges
in intergenerational mobility (Working Paper
No. 23618). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Economic Research.

PAGE 24
References
Doyle, W. R. & Delaney, J. A. (forthcoming). Recovery Humphreys, B. R. (2000). Do business cycles affect
from cuts: State spending for higher education in state appropriations to higher education? Southern
J. A. Delaney (Ed.) Volatility in State Spending for Economic Journal, 67(2), 398-413.
Higher Education. American Educational Research
Association Publications. Jaquette, O. (2019). Do public universities replace state
appropriations with master’s students?” The Review
Doyle, W. R., Dziesinski, A. B., & Delaney, J. A. (2021). Modeling of Higher Education 42(3), 1101-1144.
volatility in public funding for higher education. Journal
of Education Finance, 46(4), 563-591. Jaquette, O., & Curs, B. R. (2015). Creating the out-
of-state university: Do public universities increase
nonresident freshman enrollment in response to
Dynarski, S. (2020, January 19). In a Sharp Downturn, College
declining state appropriations? Research in Higher
Can Be a Shock Absorber. The New York Times, sec.
Education, 56(6), 535-565.
Business. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/19/
business/college-downturn-absorber.htm
Johnstone, D. B., & Marcucci, P. N. (2010). Financing
Higher Education Worldwide. Johns Hopkins
Dziesinski, A. (2022). From Origins to Outcomes: Essays University Press.
on State Financial Aid Policy [Doctoral Dissertation]
Vanderbilt University. Kane, T. J., Orszag, P. R., & Gunter, D. L. (2003). State
fiscal constraints and higher education spending: The
Gamage, D. (2010). Preventing state budget crises: role of Medicaid and the business cycle. Brookings
Managing the fiscal volatility problem. California Institution.
Law Review, 98(3), 749-812. http://www.jstor.org/
stable/27896694 Keng, C. (2018, October 23). Recession is overdue by
4.5 years, here’s how to prepare. Forbes. https://
Heller, D. E. (2004). The devil is in the details: An www.forbes.com/sites/cameronkeng/2018/10/23/
analysis of eligibility criteria for merit scholarships recession-is-overdue-by-4-5-years-heres-how-to-
in Massachusetts. In D. E. Heller & P. Marin (Ed.), prepare/?sh=610eeb1e40d8
State Merit Scholarship Programs and Racial
Inequality (pp. 25–45). Cambridge, MA: The Civil Lacy, T. A., Fowles, J., Tandberg, D. A., & Hu, S. (2017). US
Rights Project at Harvard University. https://eric. state higher education appropriations: Assessing the
ed.gov/?id=ED489183 relationships between agency politicization, centralization,
and volatility. Policy and Society, 36(1), 16-33.
Heller, D. E., & Marin, P. (Eds.) (2002). Who should
we help? The negative social consequences of Leukhina, O. (January 14, 2020). Rising Student Debt and
merit scholarships. Cambridge, MA: The Civil the Great Recession. On the Economy Blog. Federal
Rights Project at Harvard University. https://eric. Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
ed.gov/?id=ED468845
Li, A. Y. (2017). Dramatic declines in higher education
appropriations: State conditions for budget
Heller, D. E., & Marin, P. (Eds.) (2004). State merit
punctuations. Research in Higher Education, 58(4),
scholarship programs and racial inequality.
Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard 395-429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-016-9432-0
University. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED489183
Ma, J., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2019). Education pays:
The benefits of higher education for individuals and
Hovey, H. A. (1999). State spending for higher education
society. Washington, DC: The College Board.
in the next decade: The battle to sustain current
support. California State Policy Research, Inc.
Massy, W. F. (2016). Reengineering the university: How
to be mission centered, market smart, and margin
H.R.2730 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): College for All Act
conscious. Johns Hopkins University Press.
of 2021. (2021, April 21). http://www.congress.gov/

ASSESSING THE OPTIONS | PAGE 25

 References
McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Mokher, C. G. (2009). Nicholson-Crotty, J., & Meier, K. J. (2003). Politics,
Partisans, professionals, and power: The role of structure, and public policy: The case of higher
political factors in state higher education funding. education. Educational Policy, 17(1), 80-97.
The Journal of Higher Education, 80(6), 686–713.
Nguyen, S., Fishman, R., Weeden, D., & Harnisch, T.
McLendon, M. K., Heller, D. E., & Young, S. P. (2005). State (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on state higher
postsecondary policy innovation: Politics, competition, education budgets: A tracker of responses from
and the interstate migration of policy ideas. The state higher education systems and agencies. New
Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 363–400. America. https://www.newamerica.org/education-
policy/reports/state-budget-cuts/#authors
McMahon, W. W. (2009). Higher learning, greater good:
The private and social benefits of higher education. Oreopoulous, P., & Petronijevic, U. (2013). Making college
Johns Hopkins University Press. worth it: A review of the returns to higher education.
The Future of Children, 23(1), 41-65.
McMahon, W. W. (2021). The external social benefits
of higher education: Theory, evidence, and policy Orphan, C. M. (2020). Why regional public universities
implications. Journal of Education Finance, 46(4), are vulnerable during recessions and must be
398-430. protected. [Policy brief]. Third Way.

McMahon, W. W., & Delaney, J. A. (2021). The external Poterba, J. (1995). Balanced budget rules and fiscal policy:
social benefits of higher education: Introduction evidence from the states. National Tax Journal,
to this special issue. Journal of Education Finance, 48(3), 329-336. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41789150
46(4), 387-397.
Reed, J & Collins, S. (July 8, 2021) Reed, Collins
National Association of State Budget Officers. (2019). Reintroduce PASS Act to Help Make Higher
State expenditure report: Fiscal years 2017-2019. Education More Affordable & Accessible. Press
NASBO. https://www.nasbo.org/reports-data/state- Release. https://www.reed.senate.gov/news/releases/
expenditure-report reed-collins-reintroduce-pass-act-to-help-make-
higher-education-more-affordable-and-accessible
National Association of State Student Grant & Aid
Programs. (2021). 51st Annual Survey Report, 2019- S.2054 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Partnerships for
2020. NASSGAP. https://www.nassgapsurvey.com/ Affordability and Student Success Act. (2021, June
survey_reports.aspx 15). http://www.congress.gov/

National Bureau of Economic Research. (2020). US Slaughter, S. & Rhoades, G. A. (2009). Academic
Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions. capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and
https://www.nber.org/research/data/us-business- higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.
cycle-expansions-and-contractions
State Higher Education Executive Officers Association.
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2022). (2022). State Higher Education Finance: FY 2021.
Term Enrollment Estimates: Spring 2022. https:// https://shef.sheeo.org/
nscresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/CTEE_
Report_Spring_2022.pdf Tandberg, D. A., & Anderson, C. K. (2020). Funding
Higher Education for the Public Good. Change:
Newfield, C. (2016). The great mistake: How we wrecked The Magazine of Higher Learning 52 (5). Routledge:
public universities and how we can fix them. Johns 41–43. doi:10.1080/00091383.2020.1807882.
Hopkins University Press.

PAGE 26
References
Taylor, B. J. (2022). Wrecked: Deinstitutionalization and
partial defenses in state higher education policy.
Rutgers University Press.

The Institute for College Access and Success. (2019).

Better Together: How a Reimagined Federal-State
Partnership to Fund Public Higher Education Could
Help Bring College Within Reach for All. https://
ticas.org/affordability-2/student-aid/federal-state-
partnerships/better-together/

Toutkoushian, R. K., & Shafiq, M. N. (2010). A Conceptual

Analysis of State Support for Higher Education:
Appropriations Versus Need-Based Financial
Aid. Research in Higher Education 51(1): 40–64.
doi:10.1007/s11162-009-9148-5.

U.S. Department of Education (n.d.) College Access

Challenge Grant Program: Performance. https://
www2.ed.gov/programs/cacg/performance.html

Warren, E. (2019) Affordable College for All. https://

elizabethwarren.com/plans/affordable-higher-
education

Webber, D. A. (2017). State divestment and tuition

at public institutions. Economics of Education
Review, 60, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
econedurev.2017.07.007

Whitford, E. (September 28, 2021). States Will Need

to Pony Up for Biden’s Free College Plan. Inside
Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/
news/2021/09/28/free-community-college-plan-
requires-states-funding

ASSESSING THE OPTIONS | PAGE 27

 03 Creating a Federal-
State Partnership to
Guarantee Affordability
for Students through
Free College
BY: KELLY ROSINGER

Postsecondary education has long been considered an

engine of upward mobility that provides a pathway to a
secure economic future for children from middle- and
lower-income families. Public colleges and universities
play a particularly important role in this pathway by
guaranteeing an affordable and accessible postsecondary
education. Nearly three out of four undergraduates in the
United States are enrolled in a public institution (de Brey et
al., 2021). These institutions, especially community colleges,
less selective and regional comprehensive universities,
and minority-serving institutions (MSIs), also enroll large
numbers of students from racially minoritized, lower-
income, and other underserved backgrounds.

PAGE 28
But elected representatives have failed to fully invest repayment (Houle & Addo, 2019; Scott-Clayton, 2018).
in public colleges and universities and the students Public policies that have supported home ownership
who attend them. State funding per student for public and college attendance for white families have also
higher education institutions has fallen over time. While simultaneously denied those same opportunities
recessions have generally contributed to declining to Black families, preventing Black families from
state commitments to public higher education, accumulating and passing along wealth to their children
funding has not rebounded to pre-recession levels in the same way white families have (Rothstein, 2017;
most states (Laderman & Kunkle, 2022; Mitchell et Watts, 2020).
al., 2019; Rosinger et al., 2022). Nationally, 10 years
after the Great Recession, states allocated $6.6 billion Declines in state support, increases in tuition, and
less in inflation-adjusted dollars to public colleges growing reliance on student loans have resulted in a
and universities (Mitchell et al., 2019). These trends shattered guarantee: college is simply unaffordable for
exist alongside historical underfunding of community many students. A federal-state partnership establishing
colleges and MSIs relative to four-year and primarily a free college program could build an affordability
white institutions (Cunningham et al., 2014; Harris, guarantee for all students who want to pursue higher
2021). Public institutions that serve higher shares of education, regardless of their background. This report
racially minoritized students have lower levels of total outlines the growth in free college programs at the
revenue on average (TICAS, 2019). As state support local and state levels and summarizes the evidence of
wanes, colleges have increasingly turned to tuition as their impacts on students. It then provides an overview
a revenue source: tuition is 1.65 times higher at public of variations in the design of a free college program
community colleges and 2.58 times higher at public that are likely to impact the program’s outcomes.
four-year colleges than it was in the early 1990s (Ma & Finally, it offers policy recommendations for designing
Pender, 2021). an equitable and effective free college program at the
federal level.

Nationally, 10 years after THE GROWTH OF FREE COLLEGE

PROGRAMS AND THEIR IMPACTS
the Great Recession, In recent decades, a proliferation of free college,
states allocated $6.6 sometimes called “promise,” programs have emerged

billion less in inflation- across the country that promote college affordability
by guaranteeing tuition-free postsecondary education
adjusted dollars to public for eligible students. Many free college programs are
colleges and universities. local, place-based programs established by nonprofit
foundations, corporations, local communities, or
MITCHELL ET AL., 2019
colleges themselves to improve college access and
affordability and build a college-going culture in the
community (Miller-Adams, 2021). States have also
Students are left to shoulder a growing share of the enacted free college programs, often as part of college
cost of college, increasingly relying on student loans completion initiatives and workforce development goals
to pay for college, or not enrolling at all (Mitchell et (Millett et al., 2020).
al., 2019). Outstanding student debt stands at $1.59
trillion (Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 2022). And The result is a patchwork of programs where place
students often struggle to repay their student loans, determines whether and the extent to which students
particularly if they did not complete a degree (Trends receive an affordability guarantee. In recent years,
in Student Aid, 2016). Black students, in particular, face free college discussions have also moved into federal
high levels of student debt and substantial barriers to policy discourse. In 2015, the Obama administration

CREATING A FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP | PAGE 29

 announced a proposal for America’s College Promise or other underserved students (e.g., Bell & Gándara,
(ACP) to establish two years of tuition-free college for 2021; Gándara & Li, 2020; Odle, 2022), indicating
eligible students (The White House, 2015). The 2020 free college programs could be a lever to reduce
presidential election saw several Democratic presidential educational inequities. However, other research has
candidates include free college as a campaign promise. found that certain design features of free college
In 2021, Congress considered the Build Back Better Act, programs may exacerbate inequities: for instance, free
a substantial federal investment in childcare, healthcare, college programs with academic requirements and
climate action, and the economy. The initial legislation more generous awards had larger enrollment effects
included a proposal for ACP, which would have created among advantaged students (Gándara & Li, 2020).
a federal-state partnership to establish tuition-free
community college and boost state investments in Free college programs vary substantially across
public colleges and universities. ACP was one of the first states and localities in design (Burkander et al., 2019;
pieces cut from the bill (Nadworny, 2021) before the Gándara & Li, 2020; Miller-Adams & McMullen, 2022;
entire legislation stalled. Perna & Leigh, 2018; Rosinger et al., 2021), perhaps
contributing to the different outcomes identified in
Today is a critical moment for establishing a nationwide prior research. These variations in how free college
affordability guarantee for all future college students. programs are designed—for instance, differences in
The Biden administration in 2022 took one step toward the costs that are covered and the conditions under
redressing college affordability by canceling up to which students can receive aid—have implications for
$10,000 (and $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients) in the extent to which programs equitably and effectively
student debt for eligible individuals through executive promote educational attainment. The following
order (The White House, 2022). But loan cancellation section describes some of the considerations and
does not provide an affordability guarantee for the trade-offs involved in designing a free college program
long term: future college students are not included at the federal level.
in the plan. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic
and the associated economic decline, which have CONSIDERATIONS AND TRADE-OFFS
both disproportionately affected racially minoritized IN DESIGNING A FEDERAL FREE
and lower-income families (National Center for COLLEGE PROGRAM
Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, 2020; Parolin
Free college programs differ in the extent to which they
& Wimer, 2020), has made college affordability even
address affordability concerns and the extent to which
more salient for policy action in the coming years.
eligible students can access aid. These affordability and
accessibility design decisions are likely to shape the
Researchers have examined the impact of free
pathways the program opens and for whom and under
college programs in a variety of contexts given the
what conditions these pathways are opened.
number of programs that now exist. This work offers
promising evidence that free college programs, at Designing an affordability guarantee
least in some contexts, can lead to increases in Free college programs are intended to send a clear
students’ expectations of educational attainment and simple message to students: that college is
(Odle, 2022), college enrollment at eligible institutions affordable (Perna & Smith, 2020). However, existing
(Bartik et al., 2021; Bell, 2021a; Gándara & Li, 2020; programs differ substantially in what costs they cover
Gurantz, 2020; Page et al., 2019), transfer to a four- and how they cover these costs. How policymakers
year college (Bell, 2021b; Bell & Gándara, 2021), and design free college programs have implications for
degree attainment (Bartik et al., 2021; Bell & Gándara, the extent to which these programs actually make
2021), while also potentially reducing student debt college affordable, particularly for students from
loads (Odle et al., 2021). Some of these impacts are underserved backgrounds (Jones et al., 2014; Miller-
particularly large for lower-income, racially minoritized, Adams, 2021).

PAGE 30
• Tuition and fees vs. cost of attendance New York’s Excelsior Scholarship is a last-dollar
Most statewide free college programs cover the cost program that provides funds to cover tuition costs
of tuition (and sometimes fees) for eligible students for eligible students after other aid is applied (Scott-
(Burkander et al., 2019). For this reason, free college Clayton et al., 2022). The New Mexico Opportunity
programs are sometimes referred to as tuition-free, Scholarship, enacted in 2022, also operates as a
indicating students will incur other costs associated last-dollar program but can be used to cover tuition as
with enrollment. The ACP proposal at the federal level well as required fees (New Mexico Higher Education
similarly focuses on covering tuition and fees. But Department, n.d.). One of the benefits of the ACP
tuition and fees are just a portion of what students plan was that it would have covered tuition and fees
pay to attend college. Students must also pay for at community colleges on a first-dollar basis, allowing
books and supplies, housing, food, transportation, Pell Grant recipients to use those funds for other
and other living costs (Goldrick-Rab, 2016). Students educational expenses (The Education Trust, 2021).
may also reduce the number of hours they work
in order to attend class and focus on their studies,
which means they have less income available to pay In deciding what costs to
these expenses. Non-tuition costs account for more
than half of the cost of attendance at public colleges
cover and how to award
and universities (Goldrick-Rab, 2016). Without funds free college aid alongside
to help cover the full cost of attendance, college other aid, policymakers
enrollment will remain unaffordable for many
students, and free college programs will fail to create
face trade-offs between
an affordability guarantee. offering smaller awards to
a larger pool of students
• First dollar vs. last dollar
Free college programs also vary in how the aid award is
versus offering larger
structured alongside other federal or state aid a student awards to a smaller, more
receives. Most statewide free college programs provide
targeted group of students.
last-dollar aid to eligible students—meaning free college
funds are applied to tuition and fee costs after other
aid is applied. Because the Pell Grant and state grants
may be sufficient to cover tuition and fees (especially Trade-offs in designing an affordability guarantee:
at community colleges) for the lowest-income students In deciding what costs to cover and how to award
who receive the maximum Pell award, the neediest free college aid alongside other aid, policymakers face
students may receive no or very little aid from free trade-offs between offering smaller awards to a larger
college programs (Miller-Adams & McMullen, 2022). pool of students versus offering larger awards to a
Rather, middle- and higher-income students are the smaller, more targeted group of students. Covering
primary beneficiaries of last-dollar awards (Billings, 2018). only tuition and fees and awarding last-dollar aid would
Meanwhile, students from low-income backgrounds require fewer resources for each eligible student and
are left to cover the remaining cost of attendance. In could allow the program to be more sustainable and
contrast, first-dollar programs award aid to students potentially extended to a larger number of students.
before other federal or state grants are applied. Since Not surprisingly then, last-dollar, free college programs
many federal and state aid programs can be applied are far more common than first-dollar programs
toward the full cost of attendance rather than tuition (Burkander et al., 2019; Miller-Adams & McMullen,
and fees alone, students can receive free college aid 2022). But many students, especially lower-income
in addition to other sources of aid, to meet financial students, would still find college unaffordable without
need up to the full cost of attendance. For instance, funds to support non-tuition educational expenses

CREATING A FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP | PAGE 31

 (Goldrick-Rab, 2016; Jones et al., 2014). As a result, a 2.5 high school GPA and is available to students
programs that cover only tuition and fees, rather whose family’s adjusted gross income is below a
than meeting financial need to cover the full cost of specified amount. The Oregon Promise, enacted
attendance, could be limited in the extent to which they in 2015, requires a 2.0 high school GPA, and the
improve college enrollment and reduce inequities. On state specifies that a student’s expected family
the other hand, programs that cover financial needs up contribution may be used to determine eligibility.
to the full cost of attendance and award first-dollar aid Students with family incomes below $125,000
are likely to be more expensive to operate, perhaps a are eligible for New York’s Excelsior Scholarship
reason very few free college programs do this (Billings, program, another more recent state free college
2018). To maintain costs, states may seek to limit the program, without needing to meet specified high
number of students who receive the award. As a result, school academic thresholds. The Tennessee
these aid programs are better able to address college Promise and Reconnect programs do not have
affordability concerns but absent substantial investments academic thresholds for initial receipt or specified
by states and the federal government, fewer students income requirements (Rosinger et al., 2021b).
may benefit from the program.
• Residency and citizenship requirements: Existing
Designing an accessibility guarantee free college programs at the state level all include
In addition to differences in the extent to which they a residency requirement for eligibility (Rosinger
address affordability concerns, existing free college et al., 2021). Local free college programs are also
programs also vary in which students are eligible for an place-based, meaning students typically need to
award and under what conditions they can receive (and reside in a particular county or attend a particular
maintain) aid. Free college programs frequently place high school to receive aid (Miller-Adams, 2015).
restrictions on who is eligible to receive funding and Where residency requirements vary in existing
create a process applicants must follow to apply for state free college programs is the length of time
(and maintain) an award. These design decisions have students must be residents to qualify. In some
important implications for the extent to which aid is states, residency can be established after one year
accessible to college students. or less. Other times, free college programs require
students to live in the state for two or more years.
Eligibility restrictions As an example, Indiana’s decades-old 21st Century
Eligibility restrictions determine which students Scholars program requires residency for enrollment
are able to receive aid and vary substantially across in the program in 7th or 8th grade and when
existing free college programs (Burkander et al., 2019; receiving scholarship funds. Programs may require
Everett et al., in progress; Miller-Adams & McMullen, students to be U.S. citizens or eligible non-citizens,
2022; Perna & Leigh, 2022; Rosinger et al., 2021). For preventing undocumented students from receiving
instance, programs may include: aid, or may extend aid to students regardless of
their citizenship status. Undocumented students
• Financial need and/or academic requirements: are not eligible for the Tennessee Promise, for
Some states restrict free college aid to students example, while the Delaware Student Excellence
with financial need, often using family income Equals Degree (SEED) program is available to
or information on a family’s expected family undocumented students (Rosinger et al., 2021b).
contribution from FAFSA to set eligibility thresholds.
Similarly, states may set academic thresholds for • Code of conduct requirements: To be eligible
eligibility, using high school GPA and/or standardized for free college, state programs may require that
test scores to determine who is eligible to students adhere to a specified code of conduct, that
receive aid. Oklahoma’s Promise, a program first they do not have a criminal history, that they are
established in the 1990s, requires students to have not currently incarcerated, or that they successfully

PAGE 32
 pass a drug test. While these requirements vary colleges) and/or the degree programs (associate’s
in the extent to which they impose a particular vs. bachelor’s degree) for which funds can be used
code of conduct on students, they each impose (Rosinger et al., 2021). To date, most state free
some type of conduct restrictions. Individuals who college programs focus on providing aid to cover
are currently incarcerated are not eligible for the tuition at community colleges and/or associate’s
Tennessee Promise or Reconnect programs (Everett degree programs at eligible institutions, which may
et al., in progress), for example, while the New include four-year colleges that offer associate’s
Mexico Opportunity Scholarship extends eligibility degrees (Burkander et al., 2019). A smaller number
to students who are incarcerated (New Mexico of states also place restrictions on the fields of study
Higher Education Department, n.d.). that recipients of free college funds can pursue,
often seeking to align state aid with workforce needs
• Enrollment timing requirements: Free college in health, science, technology, engineering, or
programs may primarily target recent high school mathematics or other high-demand fields (Rosinger
graduates, requiring students to enroll in college et al., 2021). Indiana’s Workforce Ready Grant, the
immediately or shortly after high school graduation. Work Ready Kentucky Scholarship, and the West
In Tennessee, which operates two free college Virginia Invests programs each emphasize training in
programs, the Tennessee Promise is restricted high-demand fields and restrict eligibility to students
to students who enroll shortly after high school studying in those fields (Rosinger et al., 2021b).
graduation while the Tennessee Reconnect, which
focuses on adult students, does not include this Application requirements
same restriction (Rosinger et al., 2021b). Programs Similar to eligibility requirements, students also face
may also require full-time and/or continuous different application requirements across states when
college enrollment, restricting part-time students it comes to applying for aid (Burkander et al., 2019;
or students who need to pause their studies from Everett et al., in progress; Miller-Adams & McMullen,
receiving aid. 2022; Perna & Leigh, 2022; Rosinger et al., 2021).
These requirements can include:
• Enrollment requirements in specific institutions,
degree programs, or fields of study: Free college • Enrollment or pledge prior to application: States
programs frequently place restrictions on the may require students to sign a pledge or enroll in a
institutions (public community colleges or four-year program prior to submitting a program application.

CREATING A FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP | PAGE 33

 To be eligible for Indiana’s 21st Century Scholars Requirements for continued receipt
program, 7th or 8th grade students must pledge to Once enrolled in college, there are additional
meet certain academic requirements, not use illegal requirements students must comply with in order to
drugs or alcohol, or commit a crime or delinquent maintain their award (Burkander et al., 2019; Everett et
act (Indiana Commission for Higher Education, n.d.). al., in progress; Miller-Adams & McMullen, 2022; Perna
& Leigh, 2022; Rosinger et al., 2021), which can include:
• FAFSA vs. additional program application: Some
free college programs rely on FAFSA while others • Annual application submission: Students may be
have a specific program application that students required to submit a program application annually
need to complete, sometimes annually, to be to be eligible to continue receiving aid. This may
considered for the award (Rosinger et al., 2021). involve submitting additional materials to verify
Hawaii’s Promise, the New Jersey Community income or other eligibility requirements. Tennessee
College Opportunity Grant, and the Maryland and Mississippi, for example, both require students to
Community College Promise programs, for submit a program application annually for continued
example, all rely on FAFSA (or an alternate state receipt of the scholarship (Rosinger et al., 2021b).
aid application) as the application for the state free
college program. Other states, such as Tennessee • Full-time and/or college enrollment requirements:
and Mississippi, require a specific program Similar to initial eligibility requirements, students
application, sometimes but not always in addition to may be required to maintain continuous and/or
FAFSA (Rosinger et al., 2021b). full-time enrollment in college and may lose access
to funds if they change to part-time status or
• Meeting deadlines: States often require students to take an unapproved pause from their studies. For
submit FAFSA or a program application and other example, Rhode Island Promise and Delaware SEED
materials by a specified deadline. For instance, recipients are required to maintain continuous,
the Tennessee Promise program application is due full-time college enrollment to maintain eligibility for
December 1 and the FAFSA is due March 1. Some the programs (Community College of Rhode Island,
states, such as Delaware and Oregon, list a priority 2021; Rosinger et al., 2021b).
deadline for their free college programs, indicating
students who submit an application by that deadline • Academic requirements: Once in college, free
will receive prioritization for funding. college programs may require that students
maintain a certain GPA (beyond the GPA
• Income, GPA, or transcript verification: To requirement to maintain satisfactory academic
document financial need, programs may require progress at the institution) to remain eligible for
that students submit information to verify their an award. Rhode Island Promise recipients, for
family income. Such requests are separate and on instance, must maintain a 2.5 GPA in college to
top of any requests that students receive to verify maintain the scholarship (Community College of
information on the FAFSA from their college. To Rhode Island, 2021), which is higher than the GPA
verify that students have met specified academic requirement for maintaining the federal Pell Grant.
requirements, such as GPA or coursework, students
or their high schools may need to submit transcripts • Volunteer requirements: To maintain aid eligibility,
or other documentation. Mississippi’s Higher programs may require students to complete
Education Legislative Plan for Needy Students volunteer service and submit related documentation.
program requires new applicants to submit two The Tennessee Promise and Nevada Promise both
forms of residency documents, a household income require recipients to conduct community service and
verification worksheet, and verification of high complete a form documenting the service (Nevada
school curriculum from a high school counselor System of Higher Education, 2022; Tennessee Higher
(Mississippi Office of Student Financial Aid, 2022). Education Commission, 2022).

PAGE 34
• Limits on the number of semesters award covers: have material consequences for already underserved
To encourage students to complete a degree in a students, serving to potentially widen racial and
timely manner, programs may limit the number of economic inequities in educational outcomes.
semesters or years a student is eligible to receive
an award. This may make it difficult for part-time In targeting aid, policymakers sometimes design
students or students who pause their studies to programs such that the receipt of aid implies
maintain aid. Students can receive the Maryland a reciprocal agreement between the state and
Community College Promise Scholarship and student. This idea of reciprocity relates to the idea
Nevada Promise for up to three years while students of deservingness in that it requires students to do
can receive the Tennessee Promise for up to five something above and beyond attending college in return
semesters (Maryland Higher Education Commission, for receiving aid. Volunteer requirements, requirements
n.d.; Nevada System of Higher Education, 2022; to live in the state after graduation, or requirements
Tennessee Higher Education Commission, 2022). to maintain a specified college GPA are examples of
program requirements that require reciprocity on
TRADE-OFFS IN DESIGNING the part of the student in order to be eligible for aid.
AN ACCESSIBLE GUARANTEE: While some of these design features, such as GPA
requirements may be favored by voters and the public
Eligibility restrictions and requirements for receiving
(Bell, 2020), they can also reinforce inequities by adding
aid help states allocate public funds toward various
additional requirements for recipients.
state aims, such as increasing college enrollment
and completion, reducing educational inequities,
and meeting workforce development goals. In doing
so, both students and the state may benefit from
Eligibility restrictions
investments in guaranteeing affordability: for instance,
field of study restrictions may help graduates obtain and requirements for
employment and earn higher wages in high-demand receiving aid help states
fields while also helping states meet workforce
allocate public funds
development goals.
toward various state
But choices regarding eligibility restrictions and aims, such as increasing
the process of applying for (and maintaining) aid
have implications for who is eligible for aid and
college enrollment and
whether students are able to access aid for which completion, reducing
they are eligible. Eligibility restrictions are tools that educational inequities,
policymakers use to target public funds toward
populations deemed deserving of aid. There are
and meeting workforce
a number of ways policymakers construct the development goals.
populations they deem deserving of aid: restricting
eligibility to students who meet some threshold of
need or academic merit, who are residents of the state Restricting eligibility and requiring reciprocity from
and citizens of the United States, who have upheld students in return for aid beyond attending college can
a certain code of conduct, who enroll full time and help target resources to students who are most in need
continuously in college after high school, or who are or most likely to persist and graduate but can also put
studying at particular institutions or fields of study. up barriers preventing eligible students from receiving
Many of these restrictions, however, tend to favor aid. These requirements and restrictions, in addition
relatively advantaged students. As a result, the ways to other requirements for applying for and maintaining
policymakers construct deserving populations can aid, create administrative burdens, or frictions in

CREATING A FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP | PAGE 35

 how eligible individuals experience their interactions in recent years have resulted in a renewed focus on
with government programs (Herd & Moynihan, the potential role of the federal government in public
2019). Administrative burdens—created by extensive higher education. ACP, a proposal to build a federal-
documentation, deadlines, meetings, volunteer hours, state partnership that guarantees college affordability
and other requirements—introduce a complex process for all students, regardless of their backgrounds, was
that students must successfully navigate in order to removed from legislation that later stalled in Congress
receive aid. They can prevent eligible individuals from in 2022. The Biden administration has since used
receiving public services and disproportionately fall executive action to offer student loan relief for eligible
on racially minoritized and lower-income individuals, individuals. The move is a step toward addressing a
serving to reproduce existing inequities (Herd & broken guarantee for millions of former college students
Moynihan, 2019; Ray et al., 2022). around the country. But future college students face the
same policy environment that got us to this point in the
Simpler and more transparent aid programs— first place: decreasing state support, rising tuition levels,
presumably those with fewer administrative burdens— and growing reliance on student debt. Given that policy
have been shown to increase enrollment while complex decisions created a shattered affordability guarantee,
financial aid processes prevent many eligible students policy choices can also be used to cement a robust and
from receiving aid (Dynarski et al., 2021). As a result, sustainable affordability guarantee.
aid programs that are simple and easier to navigate
are likely to be more effective at reaching their
target populations than aid programs that are more Simpler and more
complex and require students to navigate a number
of requirements. Research has shown that FAFSA
transparent aid
alone is complex and can prevent eligible students programs—presumably
from applying for aid (Dynarski & Scott-Clayton,
those with fewer
2006), and FAFSA is only one part of many existing
state free college programs. The complex maze of administrative burdens—
eligibility restrictions, application requirements, and have been shown to
requirements for continued receipt that exist in many
increase enrollment while
free college programs may limit the extent to which
the programs are accessible, even for otherwise eligible complex financial aid
students. To be clear, some of these design choices are processes prevent many
likely intentional: complexity in eligibility requirements
allows policymakers to narrowly target financial aid to
eligible students from
a smaller group of students, such as students with the receiving aid.
most financial need. However, this complexity can also
DYNARSKI ET AL., 2021
make programs less accessible to the very students
they aim to support.

In doing so, however, policymakers must be attuned

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS to how free college program design determines
FOR DESIGNING AN AFFORDABILITY what postsecondary pathways are opened, to whom
GUARANTEE postsecondary education pathways are opened,
Concerns about student debt and college affordability and under what conditions these pathways remain
are in part the result of sustained policy choices to open. These decisions influence the extent to which
decrease commitments to funding higher education at college is actually affordable and the extent to which a
the state level and limited interventions to halt these program is accessible to eligible students. The choices
declines at the federal level. Federal policy discussions policymakers make regarding how to design a free

PAGE 36
college program have implications for how equitable affordability have been heightened. Absent policy
and effective the program will be. The outcomes of any intervention that truly addresses affordability,
federal-state partnership focused on affordability will pathways to postsecondary education, particularly
hinge on these policy choices. This section highlights for students who are racially minoritized and from
promising design features that center affordability low-income backgrounds, will be closed.
and accessibility as federal policymakers consider free
college proposals. Promising design features for accessibility

• Weigh benefits of eligibility restrictions and

Promising design features for affordability program requirements vs. their costs
• Bring states back to the table to fund public The FAFSA alone has proven to be a barrier that
colleges and universities
can prevent eligible students from accessing aid.
Waning state support for public colleges and Existing free college programs often pile additional
universities has contributed in large part to requirements and restrictions on top of any
the broken college affordability guarantee. The that the FAFSA already imposes. In considering
emergence of hundreds of local free college restrictions on who is eligible for aid and under what
programs across the country is an indictment of conditions they can receive that aid, policymakers
the failure of many states to invest in public higher should embrace a simple and transparent
education. Any federal-state partnership that is process. They should weigh the benefits of any
created to build an affordability guarantee will requirements or restrictions against their costs
need to ensure that states reinvest in public higher with an understanding that administrative burdens
education institutions to help maintain lower tuition can reduce the effectiveness of public programs
levels, such as through realistic maintenance-of- and widen racial and economic inequities (Herd
effort provisions or other options that support state & Moynihan, 2019). When possible, policymakers
investments (Natow, 2021). In addition, a federal- should shift administrative burdens from students
state partnership should work to ensure more to state and federal governments, using information
equitable state funding across institution types, these governments often already have to determine
particularly for MSIs, which states have historically eligibility and award aid.
underfunded (Cunningham et al., 2014; Harris,
2021) but that play a critical role in upward mobility • Reduce reliance on concepts of deservingness
for many underserved students. and reciprocity
Restricting a college guarantee to students who are
• First dollar and full cost of attendance
deemed “deserving” of aid can reinforce broader
Perhaps the most central element for cementing an
social inequities. For instance, aid programs that
affordability guarantee is that the program actually
require students to meet a specified academic
makes college affordable. Rising tuition levels
threshold to receive aid tend to be popular because
along with housing, books and supplies, and other
people may perceive that students have earned
living expenses have made college unaffordable
or deserve access to aid (Bell, 2020). But this aid
for many students. Last-dollar aid and programs
disproportionately flows to relatively advantaged
that cover tuition expenses only help chip away
families. Similarly, the concept of reciprocity implies
at college costs, but they only make affordable
that students need to do something above and
for some students. If policymakers want to design
beyond attending college, which is what the aid is
an effective and equitable free college guarantee,
directed toward, to deserve aid. By attending college
first-dollar aid and covering financial need up to
and maintaining satisfactory academic progress,
the full cost of attendance must be on the table. As
students are doing their part. Volunteer, GPA, or
we begin to emerge from a pandemic and related
full-time enrollment requirements that ask students
economic downturn that has disproportionately
to do more than this may be popular but are likely
affected students who are racially minoritized and
to limit students’ access to aid.
fromo low-income backgrounds (National Center
for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, 2020;
Parolin & Wimer, 2020), concerns over college

CREATING A FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP | PAGE 37

 References
Bartik, T. J., Hershbein, B., & Lachowska, M. (2021). Cunningham, A., Park, E., & Engle, J. (2014).
The effects of the Kalamazoo Promise Scholarship Minority-serving institutions: Doing more with
on college enrollment and completion. Journal of less. Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Human Resources, 56(1), 269-310. Retrieved from https://www.ihep.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/05/uploads_docs_pubs_msis_doing_
Bell, E. (2021a). Estimating the spillover effects of more_w-less_final_february_2014-v2.pdf
the Tennessee Promise: Exploring changes in
tuition, fees, and enrollment. Journal of Student de Brey, C., Snyder, T. D., Zhang, A., & Dillow, S.
Financial Aid, 50(1), 4. A. (2021). Digest of education statistics, 2019.
National Center for Education Statistics. http://
Bell, E. (2021b). Does free community college https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2021/2021009.pdf
improve student outcomes? Evidence from a
regression discontinuity design. Educational Dynarski, S., Libassi, C., Michelmore, K., & Owen, S.
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(2), 329-350. (2021). Closing the gap: The effect of reducing
complexity and uncertainty in college pricing on
Bell, E. (2020). The politics of designing tuition- the choices of low-income students. American
free college: How socially constructed target Economic Review, 111(6), 1721-1756.
populations influence policy support. The
Journal of Higher Education, 91(6), 888-926. Dynarski, S. M., & Scott-Clayton, J. E. (2006).
The cost of complexity in federal student
Bell, E., & Gándara, D. (2021). Can free community aid: Lessons from optimal tax theory and
college close racial disparities in postsecondary behavioral economics. National Tax Journal,
attainment? How Tulsa Achieves affects racially 59(2), 319-356.
minoritized student outcomes. American
Educational Research Journal, 58(6), 1142-117 7. Everett, A., Rosinger, K., Baker, R., Kim, G., Kelchen,
R., & Ortagus, J. (in progress). Tennessee’s
Billings, M. (2018). Understanding the design of burden: How students apply for state financial aid
college promise programs, and where to go within one southern state.
from here. Brookings Brown Center Chalkboard.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center- Federal Reserve Bank of New York. (2022). Quarterly
chalkboard/2018/09/18/understanding-the-design-of- report on household debt and credit. Federal
college-promise-programs-and-where-to-go-from-here/ Reserve Bank of New York, Research and
Statistics Group. https://www.newyorkfed.org/
Burkander, K., Callahan, K., Ballerini, V., & medialibrary/interactives/householdcredit/data/
Hagood, S. (2019). Statewide college promise pdf/HHDC_2022Q2
programs: Balancing affordability, access, and
student success. Research for Action. https:// Gándara, D., & Li, A. (2020). Promise for whom?
www.researchforaction.org/wp-content/ “Free-college” programs and enrollments by
uploads/2021/07/RFA-Balancing-Affordability- race and gender classifications at public, 2-year
Access-and-Success-Dec-2019-FINAL-v2.pdf colleges. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 42(4), 603-627.
Community College of Rhode Island. (2021). Rhode
Island Promise policy manual. Community Goldrick-Rab, S. (2016). Paying the price: College
College of Rhode Island. https://www.ccri.edu/ costs, financial aid, and the betrayal of the
ripromise/pdfs/ripromisepolicymanual.pdf American dream. University of Chicago Press.

PAGE 38
References
Gurantz, O. (2020). What does free community Maryland Higher Education Commission. (n.d.).
college buy? Early impacts from the Oregon Maryland Community College Promise
Promise. Journal of Policy Analysis and Scholarship frequently asked questions. Maryland
Management, 39(1), 11-35. Higher Education Commission. https://mhec.
maryland.gov/Documents/UPDATED%20
Harris, A. (2021). The state must provide: Why America’s PROMISE%20FAQ%206-20.pdf
colleges have always been unequal—and what to
do about it. Harper Collins Publishers. Miller-Adams, M. (2021). The path to free college: In
pursuit of access, equity, and prosperity. Harvard
Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2019). Administrative Education Press.
burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell
Sage Foundation. Miller-Adams, M. (2015). Promise nation: Transforming
communities through place-based scholarships.
Houle, J. N., & Addo, F. R. (2019). Racial disparities WE Upjohn Institute.
in student debt and the reproduction of the
fragile black middle class. Sociology of Race and Miller-Adams, M., & McMullen, I. (2022). Promise
Ethnicity, 5(4), 562-57 7. program design for equity outcomes: A
landscape survey. W.E. Upjohn Institute for
Indiana Commission for Higher Education. (n.d.). Employment Research. https://www.econstor.eu/
The scholar pledge: What constitutes a pledge bitstream/10419/262394/1/22-366.pdf
violation? Indiana Commission of Higher
Education. https://scholars.in.gov/wp-content/ Mississippi Office of Student Financial Aid. (2022).
uploads/2017/07/7-18-17_Pledge-Violation.pdf HELP – Higher Ed Legislative Plan. Mississippi
Office of Student Financial Aid. https://www.
Jones, T., Ramirez-Mendoza, J., & Jackson, V. (2020). msfinancialaid.org/help/
A promise worth keeping: An updated equity-
driven framework for free college programs. The Mitchell, M., Leachman, M., & Saenz, M. (2019).
Education Trust. https://edtrust.org/wp-content/ State higher education funding cuts have pushed
uploads/2014/09/A-Promise-Worth-Keeping_An- costs to students, worsened inequality. Center on
Updated-Equity-Driven-Framework-for-Free- Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.
College-Programs_October_2020.pdf org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/10-24-19sfp.pdf

Laderman, S., & Kunkle, K. (2022). State higher Natow, R. (2021). A framework for understanding
education finance FY2021. State Higher federal-state partnerships for higher education.
Education Executive Officers Association. https:// The SUNY Rockefeller Institute of Government.
shef.sheeo.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED617045.pdf
SHEEO_SHEF_FY21_Report.pdf
Nevada System of Higher Education. (2022). 2021-
Ma, J., & Pender, M. (2021). Trends in college pricing 2022 Nevada Promise scholarship report.
and student aid 2021. The College Board. https:// Nevada System of Higher Education. https://
research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/trends- nshe.nevada.edu/wp-content/uploads/Academic-
college-pricing-student-aid-2021.pdf Affairs/2022%20NPS%20Report%20-%20
Final%2020220801%20.pdf

CREATING A FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP | PAGE 39

 References
New Mexico Higher Education Department. (n.d.). Ray, V., Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. (2022). Racialized
FAQ: New Mexico Opportunity Scholarship. New burdens: Applying racialized organization theory
Mexico Higher Education Department. https:// to the administrative state. Journal of Public
hed.nm.gov/uploads/documents/OS_FAQ.pdf Administration Research and Theory.

Odle, T. K. (2022). The power of “free” college: Rosinger, K., Meyer, K., & Wang, J. (2021).
Reducing racial and socioeconomic inequalities Leveraging insights from behavioral science and
in college expectations. Annenberg Institute at administrative burden in free college program
Brown University. https://www.edworkingpapers. design: A typology. Journal of Behavioral
com/sites/default/files/ai22-565.pdf Public Administration, 4(2), 1-26. https://doi.
org/10.30636/jbpa.42.197
Odle, T. K., Lee, J. C., & Gentile, S. P. (2021). Do
promise programs reduce student loans? Rosinger, K., Meyer, K., & Wang, J. (2021b). Replication
Evidence from Tennessee Promise. The Journal data for “Leveraging insights from behavioral
of Higher Education, 92(6), 847-876. science and administrative burden in free
college program design: A typology.” Harvard
Page, L. C., Iriti, J. E., Lowry, D. J., & Anthony, A. M. Dataverse. https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.
(2019). The promise of place-based investment in xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/CDYPRI
postsecondary access and success: Investigating
the impact of the Pittsburgh Promise. Education Rosinger, K., Kelchen, R., Baker, D., Ortagus, J., &
Finance and Policy, 14(4), 572-600. Lingo, M. (2022). State higher education funding
during COVID-19: Lessons from prior recessions
Parolin, Z., & Wimer, C. (2020). Forecasting estimates and implications for equity. AERA Open, 8(1), 1-19.
of poverty during the COVID-19 crisis. Poverty https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221091277
& Social Policy Brief, 4(6). Columbia University
Center on Poverty & Social Policy, Columbia Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: A forgotten
Population Research Center. history of how our government segregated
America. Liveright Publishing.
Perna, L. W., & Leigh, E. W. (2022). Database
of college promise programs. University Scott-Clayton, J. (2018). The looming student
of Pennsylvania, Alliance for Higher loan default crisis is worse than we thought.
Education and Democracy. https://ahead- Brookings, Evidence Speaks Report, 2(34).
penn.org/creating-knowledge/college-pro https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/
misesearch?search=&typology=All&state uploads/2018/01/scott-clayton-report.pdf
=All&residency_requirement=All&school_
attendance=All&type=All&finaid_limited_ Scott-Clayton, J., Libassi, C. J., & Sparks, D. (2022).
need=All&finaid_limited_academic=All&year_ The fine print on free college: Who benefits
requirement=All&disbursement=All&single_ from New York’s Excelsior Scholarship? Urban
agency=All&offers_support=All Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/
files/2022-05/The%20Fine%20Print%20on%20
Perna, L. W., & Smith, E. J. (Eds.). (2020). Improving Free%20College%20Who%20Benefits%20
research-based knowledge of college promise from%20New%20York%E2%80%99s%20
programs. American Educational Research Excelsior%20Scholarship%3F.pdf
Association.

PAGE 40
References
Tennessee Higher Education Commission. (2022).
Tennessee Promise annual report 2022.
Tennessee Higher Education Commission.
https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/thec/
bureau/research/promise/TN%20Promise%20
Annual%20Report%202022.pdf

The Education Trust. (2021, October 13). Joint letter

supporting inclusion of America’s College Promise
in the Build Back Better Act. The Education
Trust. https://edtrust.org/press-release/joint-
letter-supporting-inclusion-of-americas-college-
promise-in-the-build-back-better-act/

The White House. (2022, August 24). Fact sheet:

President Biden announces student loan relief for
borrowers who need it most. The White House.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
statements-releases/2022/08/24/fact-sheet-
president-biden-announces-student-loan-relief-
for-borrowers-who-need-it-most/

The White House. (2015, January 9). Fact sheet:

White House unveils America’s College Promise
Proposal: Tuition-free community college for
responsible students. The White House. https://
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-
office/2015/01/09/fact-sheet-white-house-unveils-
america-s-college-promise-proposal-tuitio

TICAS. (2019). Inequitable funding, inequitable

results: Racial disparities at public colleges.
TICAS. https://ticas.org/wp-content/uploads/
legacy-files/pub_files/inequitable_funding_
inequitable_results.pdf

Trends in student aid 2016. (2016). The College

Board. https://research.collegeboard.org/media/
pdf/trends-student-aid-2016-full-report.pdf

Watts, A. (2020). GI bill. In M. David, & M.

Amey (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia
of higher education (Vol. 1, pp. 647-
648). SAGE Publications. https://dx.doi.
org/10.4135/9781529714395.n243

CREATING A FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP | PAGE 41

 04
Federal-State Partnerships:
Why Centering Support
for Rural, Regional,
and Minority-Serving
Institutions Can Improve
College Affordability and
Student Success in the U.S.
BY: VANESSA A. SANSONE

Since the passage of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of

1965, America’s colleges and universities have struggled
to increase the affordability of a college degree. The HEA
policy established the creation of need-based grants, work-
study opportunities, and federal student loans, helping the
poorest Americans pay for college. The efforts were an
attempt to codify college affordability and civil rights to
those who had previously been excluded due to financial
and racial barriers (Hillman & Orfield, 2022).

PAGE 42
In doing so, federal rights and policies were created and student success, like the influence a federal Pell
that centered students rather than focusing on Grant has on the likelihood a student will earn a
institutions. These student-centered federal policies postsecondary credential (Hossler et al., 2009). This
have combined over time with state governance fiscal body of work has shown how the lack of financial aid
support of colleges and universities and have led to particularly disadvantages low-income, first-generation,
improvements in the number of Americans going and racially minoritized students and leads to increased
to college and earning a postsecondary credential debt, increased hours working for pay while enrolled,
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2022, Table and a higher likelihood of dropping out short of finishing
301.20). Despite these federal policy gains, affordability a degree (Chen & DesJardins, 2010; Santiago, 2013;
continues to be a key barrier in the nation’s efforts to Mustaffa & Davis, 2021; Sansone, 2017). However, a
broaden participation and access in postsecondary critical oversight in the public policy conversations
education, especially for underrepresented and racially about college affordability is the importance of
minoritized people in the United States (Goldrick-Rab, improving institutional funding supports for the colleges
2016; Mustaffa & Dawson, 2021; Philips, 2022; Tachine and universities who are best positioned to broaden
& Cabrera, 2021). participation in the U.S.—Rural-Serving Institutions
(RSIs), Regional Comprehensive Universities (RCUs), and
There are several contributing factors to the current Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs).
foundation of U.S. college affordability. One of those
factors rests on the partnership between federal and
state, in which these multiple levels of government work
together to keep college costs down. While need-based
While need-based grants
grants and loans have been the cornerstone of the and loans have been
federal government’s college affordability and access the cornerstone of the
efforts, the funding authorized by Congress to these
programs has not kept pace with demand and the
federal government’s
changing cost structure needed to offer a high-quality college affordability and
education (Archibald & Feldman, 2012), thereby making access efforts, the funding
loans and/or work for pay a growing share of how
families afford college (Goldrick-Rab, 2016; Perna, 2010;
authorized by Congress
Philips, 2022; Shermer, 2021). These financial aid trends to these programs has not
are accompanied by contemporary state legislation kept pace with demand,
that has sharply reduced state allocated funding for its
higher education institutions (State Higher Education
and the changing cost
Executive Officers Association [SHEEO], 2022). As a structure needed to offer
result of these measures, colleges and universities have
a high-quality education.
shifted their costs, relying more and more on tuition
and fees to fund their campus operations (Fryar, 2015; ARCHIBALD & FELDMAN, 2012
McClure & Fryar, 2020; Taylor & Cantwell, 2019), all
of which, makes colleges less affordable and prices out
low-income students in accessing opportunity (Harris, As a sector, RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs educate to the
2021; Flores & Shepherd, 2014; Rendón, et al., 2012; largest share of undergraduate students (86%) in the
Rosinger et al., 2022). United States (see Table 1). But they are also educating
large proportions of students who have exceptionally
Research on college affordability has consistently and high needs—both financial and academic. On average,
rightly focused on understanding the experiences and students enrolled at RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs are likely
outcomes of students. Usually, this scholarship examines to have fewer personal/family resources, educational
the interplay between a financial aid policy program backgrounds dominated by K-12 schools with lower

CENTERING SUPPORT | PAGE 43

 levels of funding and fewer resources, and many from selective flagships and research universities. I do
in communities with resource constraints at the this because RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs are often conflated
community level. Although RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs play with or compared to selective flagships and research
a vital component in the education of less privileged universities. But, as shown, these sectors very much
students, they are critically under-resourced, especially differ, especially regarding their mission and financial
when compared to the finances of selective flagships resources. Then, I discuss federal policies that are
and research universities (Crisp, et al., 2021; Maxim misaligned to mission and character of RSIs, RCUs,
et al., 2022, McClure & Fryar, 2020; Ortega, et al., and MSIs. I argue these misalignments contribute
2015). Collectively this means that these institutions to inequities in higher education, especially for RSIs,
are receiving disproportionately fewer resources while RCUs, and MSIs.
also working to educate and support more students
who have disproportionately few resources themselves.
This creates a double disadvantage for RSIs, RCUs, 86% of all undergraduate
and MSIs, which means that this sector of institutions students pursuing a
has less to support students who need more. This
creates an end result where the likelihood for so
degree in the U.S. do not
many underprivileged people in the U.S. to earn a attend selective flagships
postsecondary credential and achieve intergenerational or research universities.
mobility is harmed.

Higher education is a public good, and it is the reason Last, I highlight federal financial programs, primarily
why we have created federal and state public funding focusing on the CARES Act HEERF funds but also
systems. If higher education was a private good, as a touching on Promise programs, as policies that we can
society we would not have public community colleges, build off to design a more equity-focused federal-state
career technical colleges, and four-year universities. partnership program that can improve overall college
But we do because we know that public support affordability and student success. It is important to
creates the opportunity for more people to pursue note that in this report RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs includes
pathways that will lead to greater levels of stability and private and public not-for-profit community colleges
prosperity not just for the individual but for the U.S. and four-year universities who have broad access
society at large. Choosing to underfund RSIs, RCUs, missions. I define broad access as institutions with
and MSIs is choosing to restrict a community’s ability admit rates above 50%. I also define broad access
to support the next generation of people who want to as institutions who do not hold membership with the
keep building and strengthening a resilient U.S. society. Association of American Universities (AAU). AAU
In turn, choosing to under-resource RSIs, RCUs, and membership means an institution conducts the highest
MSIs, ask them to produce more, and then penalize levels of research. This last point is important because
them for underperforming is wild, an outright sabotage, several research institutions hold AAU membership
and creates a situation where we all lose. and are federally identified as an MSI. But for the
purposes of this report, I follow the operationalization
Therefore, the purpose of this report is to better outlined above.
understand the role of RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs;
their connection to affordability; and discuss how DIVERSITY IN THE WAYS
federal-state partnerships can be designed in ways INSTITUTIONS SERVE & FUNCTION
that support these institutions and improve college As Table 1 shows, 86% of all undergraduate students
affordability and student success in the United States. pursuing a degree in the U.S. do not attend selective
I do this first by diagnosing and demonstrating the flagships or research universities. Instead, most are
ways in which RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs, as a sector, differ enrolled across institutions that are identified as

PAGE 44
TABLE 1:
FY 2021 Undergraduate Student Population by Institutional Types

SELECTIVE FLAGSHIPS RSI, RCU, AND MSI

AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS TOTAL
INSTITUTIONS (N=2,341)
(N=186)
UG
GRAND
TOTAL
Count % Count % Count

1,973,100 14% 12,198,863 86% 14,171,963

Note: Author calculations using FY 2021 NCES IPEDS institutional data, Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges
(ARRC) Rural Serving Institutions data, ARRC Regional Comprehensive Universities data, Center for Minority Serving
Institutions data, and Association of American Universities data. UG = Undergraduate

RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs. When taken individually, these Regardless of differing identity markers, RSIs, RCUs,
institutions each offer a unique contribution to the and MSIs share a similarity in their service to students,
U.S. higher education landscape. For instance, RSIs which are the intentional ways that an institution
are institutions that have been identified to uniquely structures their support for underrepresented and
serve rural students and communities through the racialized students that is evidenced through their
number of degrees they award in agriculture, natural actions (Garcia et al., 2019). For RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs,
resources, and parks & recreation, which are uniquely service begins with the fact that these institutions offer
important fields to rural communities (Korchich, et broad-access admission (Crisp et al., 2021), serving as

al., 2022). RCUs are colleges that historically began as vanguards for a democratization of American higher
education. In doing this, these institutions are not
teaching institutions and have comprehensive degree
crafting a student body but instead are accepting those
program offerings that often align with the needs of
who come to seek an education. Related to their broad
their regional workforce (Orphan & McClure, 2022).
accessibility, research shows that these institutions
MSIs include: a) Tribal Colleges and Universities
enroll a greater share of students with substantial
(TCUs), (b) Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), (c)
financial need, who are less academically prepared for
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs),
college, and come from low-income families or families
and (d) Asian American and Native American Pacific
where no parent previously attended college (McClure
Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs). MSIs are
et al., 2021). And more so than selective flagships and
federally classified institutions who enroll and graduate
research universities, these institutions are working
large shares of students from minoritized racial/
to support regional communities that are often facing
ethnic backgrounds, many of whom are also low- persistent poverty, low employment, and population
income and first-generation. Collectively, MSIs offer loss (Orphan & McClure, 2022).
curriculum and services that are tailored in ways that
properly support Black and Brown experiences in There is also a collective underpinning to how RSIs,
higher education and advance racial justice (Conrad & RCUs, and MSIs function. Often referred to as our
Gasman, 2015; Garcia et al., 2019). nation’s “workhorse colleges” (Maxim et al., 2022),

CENTERING SUPPORT | PAGE 45

 these colleges work to intentionally support regional Despite their distinct service and important
economies, addressing the evolving workforce needs functions in higher education, RSIs, RCUs, and
of the community and bringing jobs and employment MSIs are often compared to selective flagships and
opportunities to their regions (Howard & Weinstein, research universities. But as Table 2 shows, selective
2022). Studies examining whether these institutions flagships and research universities organizationally
have the regional benefits claimed, have found that differ from the collective way RSIs, RCUs, and
in addition to economic benefits, RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs serve and function. Selective flagships and
MSIs contribute “community uplift” through their research universities differ in the types of students
enhancement of the region’s access to and engagement they serve, enrolling a larger share of students from
with civics, art and humanities, transportation, and wealthy and privileged backgrounds (Carnevale
public recreation (Orphan & McClure, 2022). This et al., 2020). And as previously mentioned, these
differs from the orientation of selective flagships and institutions focus their efforts on high research
research institutions that often focus their purpose activity with national and global developments in
and contributions on national and international affairs mind. With this approach, selective flagships and
(Orphan & McClure, 2022). In contrast, the function research universities contribute to the United
of RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs is embedded within a place- State’s economic, social, and civic efforts. But at the
based mission that is very much intentional and same time, these institutions foster organizational
focused on keeping regional communities resilient and cultures that do not center the needs of their local
thriving (Howard, et al., 2021; Orphan, 2020). community or region (Stevens, 2009).

TABLE 2:
FY 2021 Variation Among Institutional Types

SELECTIVE FLAGSHIPS RSI, RCU, AND MSI

AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS INSTITUTIONS
INSTITUTIONAL
(N=186) (N=2,341)
CHARACTERISTICS
MEAN OR % MEAN OR %

Enrolled Total 15,191 6,426

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Students 13,817 4,615

Part-Time Enrollment 2,224 2,842

Graduate Enrollment 4,562 709

Receive Pell Grant Aid 27% 48%

Undergrads 25-26 Years Old 7% 23%

Admit Rate 38% 86%

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Staff 4,905 712

Note: Author calculations using FY 2021 NCES IPEDS institutional data, Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges
(ARRC) Rural Serving Institutions data, ARRC Regional Comprehensive Universities data, Center for Minority Serving
Institutions data, and Association of American Universities data.

PAGE 46
TABLE 3:
FY 2021 Sources of Financial Revenues Per Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Student
by Institutional Types

SELECTIVE FLAGSHIPS RSI, RCU, AND MSI

AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS INSTITUTIONS
REVENUE PER
(N=186) (N=2,341)
FTE STUDENT
MEAN MEAN

Tuition and Fees 12,250 4,443

State Appropriations 9,899 6,410

Government Grants and Contracts 12,291 7,504

Private Gifts, Grants and Contracts 4,863 711

Investment Return 10,321 603

Other Core Revenue 10,303 2,595

Note: Author calculations using FY 2021 NCES IPEDS institutional data, Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges
(ARRC) Rural Serving Institutions data, ARRC Regional Comprehensive Universities data, Center for Minority Serving
Institutions data, and Association of American Universities data

And because their highly selective admissions practices RESOURCE DISPARITIES WITHIN
privilege students from affluent backgrounds, these AND AMONG DIFFERENT TYPES
institutions add very little to our nation’s efforts OF INSTITUTIONS
in expanding opportunity and upward mobility, The positive impacts of RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs are
particularly for marginalized groups. In fact, according stifled by structural inequities that are embedded
to a previous study by Chetty et al. (2017), the within state and federal higher education finance
institutions contributing the highest rates of social systems. This is because state and federal governments
mobility for students are not selective flagships and have adopted “market-based” funding systems that
research universities, but rather they are institutions often punish the work of RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs rather
identified as RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs. For example, than acknowledge and reward them for their service
Chetty et al. (2017) found that Cal State University and contributions (Hillman, 2022; Taylor et al., 2020).
– LA has one of the highest mobility rates (47%). By Ideally, colleges that enroll more students from less
contrast, Brown University (9.4%) and the University of privileged backgrounds should have the extra resources
Michigan, Ann Arbor (10%) have one of the lowest. A needed to support them in their development. But,
main takeaway from this previous research reveals that as shown in Table 3, RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs receive
RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs may be a more important driver fewer resources when compared to funding at selective
of economic advancement in the U.S.—more so than flagships and research institutions (Castro Samayoa,
selective flagships and research universities. 2022; Koricich et al., 2022; McClure & Fryar, 2020).

CENTERING SUPPORT | PAGE 47

 The lack of governmental investment is not limited to The RSI, RCU, and MSI sector are found to be more
one entity because RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs are found dependent on tuition and fees as a main source of their
to receive less funding at all levels of government, revenue and at the same time are more constrained
including federal (Taylor & Cantwell, 2019). For in their ability to generate revenue from other sources
example, Hispanic-Serving Institutions educate (McClure & Fryar, 2020). Revenue constraints of RSIs,
67% of all Latinos pursing a bachelor’s degree in RCUs, and MSIs are related to the fact that this sector
the U.S., but HSIs on average receive 66 cents per serves a larger share of students whom less tuition
federal dollar given to highly selective flagships and revenue can be realized (Chetty, et al., 2017; McClure
research universities (Calderón Galdeano, et al., & Fryar, 2020). RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs are also found to
2012; Excelencia in Education, 2020). Considering have, on average, smaller endowments than selective
inequities in state funding between RSIs and highly flagships and research universities. Table 4 shows that
selective flagships and research universities, Bemidji the average revenue from endowment per FTE student
State University, an RSI in Minnesota serving a at selective flagships and research universities is much
rural community struggling with persistent poverty, higher than the average endowment per FTE at RSIs,
received $6,738 in state appropriations and $5,507 RCUs, and MSIs, from $262,174 to $18,734. The RSI,
in tuition and fees per FTE (Alliance for Research RCU, and MSI sector are also shown in Table 4 to have
on Regional Colleges [ARRC], 2022; IPEDS, 2022) a larger reliance on state appropriations as a source of
whereas Minnesota’s highly selective state flagship and their revenue, and at the same time have higher average
research university, the University of Minnesota-Twin institutional expenses per FTE than their selective
Cities, received $12,507 in state appropriations and flagships and research institution counterparts. Previous
$13,965 in tuition and fees per FTE (ARRC, 2022; research on RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs revenue constraints
IPEDS, 2022). Therefore, Bemidji State, an institution has also found that these institutions tend to operate
serving a vulnerable region and is more reliant on on incredibly lean budgets, struggle to generate private
state funds, is receiving far less per student than their donations, and are disadvantaged in competing for
flagship counterpart who has access to several other donations from philanthropic foundations (Crisp et al.,
ways to bring in funding. 2021; Koricich, et al., 2022; McClure & Fryar, 2020).

TABLE 4:
FY 2021 Revenue and Instructional Expense by Institutional Types

SELECTIVE FLAGSHIPS RSI, RCU, AND MSI

AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS INSTITUTIONS
REVENUE
(N=186) (N=2,341)
AND EXPENSE
MEAN OR % MEAN OR %

Endowment per FTE Student 262,174 18,734

State Appropriation Dependency 8 19

Instructional Expense 39 41

Note: Author calculations using FY 2021 NCES IPEDS institutional data, Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges
(ARRC) Rural Serving Institutions data, ARRC Regional Comprehensive Universities data, Center for Minority Serving
Institutions data, and Association of American Universities data. FTE = Full-Time Equivalent

PAGE 48
 RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs alumni, and families of students (Carnevale, 2020).
This process yields hefty financial endowments that
are also found to have, can support unrestricted institutional efforts. In other
on average, smaller words, these institutions have “sovereign wealth funds”

endowments than (Gura, 2022) because funding from this source is not
mandated by governmental bodies and can be used
selective flagships and toward whatever they need.
research universities.
Indeed, wealthy universities have billion-dollar
endowments, with many public college endowments
In contrast, the finances of highly selective flagships exceeding those at private universities. For example,
and research universities differ greatly from the RSI, the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin), a highly
RCU, and MSI sector because these institutions are selective public flagship university, has a $42.3
much more successful at generating revenue from billion endowment and is aiming to overtake Harvard
various sources. These institutions are financially University’s $50.9 billion endowment (Gura, 2022). UT
successful for several reasons. For one, using a Austin’s endowment has grown in large part to their
systemic preferencing admissions process enables wealthy donors and alumni who have donated oil-rich
these institutions to “craft a class” (Stevens, 2009) of land, energy, and mineral rights to UT Austin through
privileged students who have successful life outcomes wills or living trusts (University of Texas at Austin,
(Chetty et al., 2017). This, in turn, generates an 2023). Without these land holdings and access to the
economically homogenous class of wealthy students, generational wealth of their donors and alumni, it is
which has been found in research to increase private fair to say that UT Austin’s endowments would not be
giving (Guilbeau, 2022). It also generates institutional where it is today.
prestige (Stevens, 2009). In other words, crafting
institutional prestige enhances fundraising efforts and Furthermore, the crafted class of wealthy families
concentrates private giving funds at selective flagships means that many of its students can afford costs,
and research universities (Guilbeau, 2022). These including high tuition and fees. This also means
institutions are then able to create environments where that most students at highly selective flagships and
their robust institutional development offices can research universities rely less on federal financial aid
tap directly into a global network of wealthy donors, because many do not qualify or need its support.

CENTERING SUPPORT | PAGE 49

 More importantly, this signals that the composition FINANCIAL POLICIES EXACERBATING
of the students being served at selective flagships INSTITUTIONAL INEQUITY
and research universities are not economically With the resource dipartites that were described
diverse. Instead, these campuses are economically in the previous section, one could argue that these
homogenous, with most students coming from wealthy
results are random, and are not an outcome related
families. The 2017 study by Chetty et al. (2017) further
to governmental financial policies. For instance, if an
corroborates this point when they examined the
individual wants to donate their priceless art and land to
economic diversity of U.S. colleges and universities.
support the long-term financial efforts of highly selective
They found that the composition of students at
research universities, like Princeton University or the
highly selective flagships and research universities are
University of Wisconsin-Madison, that is an individual
“richer than experts realized” (Aisch, et al., 2017). For
choice. But there are also instances where federal
example, at the University of California Los Angeles
policies do play a significant role in exacerbating financial
(UCLA), the share of students from families in the
inequities among institutions of higher education. And
bottom 40% of income was 19.2% (Chetty et al., 2017).
At Notre Dame, the annual median family income is where these inequities hit the hardest are at RSIs, RCUs,
$191,400, with 75% of their students coming from and MSIs. In this section, I will discuss two examples
families making $110,000 or more a year (Chetty et related to federal financial policymaking.
al., 2017). Both UCLA and Notre Dame are institutions
Federal Funding Initiatives at RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs
within the sector of highly selective flagships and
RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs are eligible to apply for extra
research universities and demonstrate serving large
funding through federal grant programs, but even when
populations of wealthy families. In comparison, the
the opportunity for targeted eligibility is offered, like
median family income of students attending Bernard
M. Baruch College in New York City is $49,700, which in the case of MSIs, there remains a disproportion
is an institution from the RSI, RCU, and MSI sector between awarded funding and institutional type. For
(Chetty et al., 2017). Because a larger share of selective example, 79% of the National Science Foundation’s
flagships and research universities’ college students total awarded funding during FY 2022 was awarded
are affluent and do not rely on government support to and channeled to selective flagships and research
pay for college, this sector of institutions are also less institutions (see Table 5). The process to secure these
reliant on state and federal funding. Thereby making funds is application-based, requiring skill in grant
the selective flagship and research university sector writing, and does not consider the challenges RSIs,
more resilient to any decline in state and federal RCUs, and MSIs face in procuring competitive federal
funding, natural disaster, or enrollment decline. grants. Therefore, RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs often

TABLE 5:
National Science Foundation Grant Awarded Funding during FY 2022
by Total Funding Amount and Institutional Type

SELECTIVE FLAGSHIPS RSI, RCU, AND MSI

AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS INSTITUTIONS
(N=186) (N=2,341)
TOTAL FUNDING
SUM % SUM %
AMOUNT
$3,563,945,465 79% $956,945,641 21%

Note: Author calculations using FY 2022 National Science Foundation Awarded Grants from USA Award Data Spending Archive,
Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges (ARRC) Rural Serving Institutions data, ARRC Regional Comprehensive Universities
data, Center for Minority Serving Institutions data, and Association of American Universities data. Excludes any missing recipients.
Includes only grants to colleges and universities that were awarded during the 2022 fiscal year.

PAGE 50
do not apply for extra federal funding opportunities appropriations that allow for these colleges to receive
because they do not have the operational resources in a grant and not go through the competitive process
personnel, time, skill, and state-of-the-art infrastructure (NASEM, 2019).
that is needed to file a competitive application
(National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Institutional Accountability Measures

Medicine [NASEM], 2019). For example, at California Recently, policymakers have proposed public funding

State Northridge, a public RCU, a quick review of their for colleges to be directly linked to performance

research and sponsored programs website reveals metrics. This has been done to hold institutions

a pattern where the same person is tackling critical accountable to taxpayer investment. But researchers

grant writing tasks for multiple colleges that at highly have discovered that such accountability measures

selective flagships and research universities would be are often associated with institutional wealth (Orfield

assigned to one person or even teams. & Hillman, 2018). In a contemporary study on
government-college risk sharing and institutional
accountability, researchers found that student loan

79% of the National repayment was a function of an institution’s high

revenue and high-income student population (Hillman,
Science Foundation’s total 2022). In other words, the more money and wealthy
awarded funding during students an institution enrolled, the greater their
likelihood was of having a high student loan repayment
FY 2022 was awarded and rate for their institution. Accountability policies that
channeled to selective ask for increased institutional output using measures

flagships and research that are not in-put adjusted to not account for
differences in institutional resources, missions, and the
institutions. characteristics of the student population, penalizes the
very colleges and universities who are serving larger
shares of underprivileged and underserved students
In addition to grant writing resource considerations at (Orfield & Hillman, 2018).
RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs, researchers have also pointed
out other federal legislation paradoxes failing RSIs, RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs fall into this bind because of
RCUs, and MSIs. For instance, there are several the large share of students they serve who come from
colleges that hold dual MSI federal designations. less privileged backgrounds and an unequal public
But under the HEA Title III, Part A, campuses are education schooling system. Because RSIs, RCUs, and
not eligible to apply for multiple federal grants MSIs enroll a disproportionate share of historically
simultaneously (Castro Samayoa, 2022). Therefore, marginalized students, using accountability measures
colleges who hold dual federal identities, like being an that favor family wealth and institutional prestige end
HSI and AANAPISI, as one example, can only apply up reducing resources to the students who need extra
for grants under one designation (Herder, 2022). In guidance and support the most. Despite previous
practice, this means such campuses are engaging in an empirical findings, accountability approaches do not
opportunity cost, forcing them to choose supporting consider these differences. Take for example, data from
one student population over the other. Also, recently the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard,
RSI researchers have pointed out that there is a put forth during the Obama administration, which
misalignment with the federal financial policy and their allows a user to compare institutions on such measures
support of RSIs. Part Q of the HEA authorizes funding as average earning potential, four-year graduation
to RSIs, but to this day there have been no funds rate, and debt after graduation. Table 6 shows the
allocated to carry out these funding efforts (Koricich, comparison of two colleges, one from each sector.
2022). It must be noted that HBCUs and TCUs Looking at this data without accounting for institutional
do receive targeted federal funding from legislative context, like mission and resources to produce high

CENTERING SUPPORT | PAGE 51

 TABLE 6:
College Scorecard Variation Among Institutions

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY

(SELECTIVE FLAGSHIPS (RSI, RCU, AND MSI
COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTION) INSTITUTION)
SCORECARD METRIC
# OR % # OR %

Average Annual Cost 5,135 13,126

4-Year Graduation Rate 88% 55%

Median Earnings 64,463 42,521

Percentage Earning More Than a HS Graduate 77% 54%

Students Receiving Federal Loans 15% 68%

Median Total Debt After Graduation 15,580 25,000

Typical Monthly Loan Payment 155 249

Repayment Rate 29% 7%

Acceptance Rate 31% 33%

Undergraduate Enrollment 34,237 7,072

Socio-Economic Diversity 22% 66%

(i.e., Percentage of Students who are Pell Eligible)

Asian Student Population 10% 0%

Black Student Population 6% 89%

Hispanic Student Population 23% 5%

White Student Population 51% 3%

Note: Pulled using 2022 U.S. Department of Education College Scorecard Data Comparison Tool

success outcomes, paints a deficit picture of Florida EVIDENCE ABOUT HOW COLLEGES
A&M University, an HBCU within the RSI, RCU, and ARE SPENDING AND ITS RELATIONSHIP
MSI sector. To fairly judge these outcomes, these TO STUDENT SUCCESS
institutions would need to be equal across measures— Access to limited resources is a significant issue that
apples to apples on finances, student characteristics, RSI, RCU, and MSI administrators cite as the greatest
etc. But, in reality, the College scorecard data challenge they face (Sansone, 2023b). Because of
measures apples to oranges, which means that budgetary issues, these colleges struggle to develop
comparisons can be misleading since these outcomes and maintain important positions, programs, and
are more of a function of familial and institutional services that help enroll, retain, and graduate their
wealth (Orfield, 2018). students (Deming & Walters, 2017; Webber &

PAGE 52
Ehrenberg, 2010). Research shows that when colleges out how systemic inequities in institutional funding
increase their spending on student services and supports, creates barriers to service and function of RSIs, RCUs,
graduation rates and student success outcomes improve and MSIs, which ultimately disadvantages marginalized
(Deming & Walters, 2017). Thereby, research evidence students and contributes to a stratified U.S. higher
strongly supports that when a college reduces services and education system.
supports for its students, success outcomes only worsen.
For example, the University of Colorado Denver (CU Promising Federal-State Partnerships that Invest
Denver), a public RCU, made a recent statement that the in Institutions to Support Students
university was experiencing a $12 million budget shortfall The federal funding through the Coronavirus Aid,
that would result in positions and student services being Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act: Higher
eliminated (Brundin, 2022). A website informing the public Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) is identified
about CU Denver’s budget mentions two important factors as a promising program where the federal government
that contributed to their financial shortfall: a) keeping worked with states to direct federal funds to institutions
tuition and fees affordable in the interest of their students; serving large populations of students from low income
and b) state funding for research institutions not keeping backgrounds who were most negatively impacted by
pace with inflation (CU Denver, 2022). the pandemic. In this section, I describe the federal
program, discuss how institutions used the funding to
To improve their finances, CU Denver, whose student support its students, mention the policy’s shortcomings,
body include 55% underrepresented students, and show why this is a promising federal-state
has decided that it will engage in the practices of partnership program.
reducing the number of classes offered, increasing
class sizes, moving courses online, and lowering pay The CARES Act: HEERF Funding as a Promising
for graduate teaching assistants (Brundin, 2022). All Federal-State Partnership Centering Institutional
these moves represent opportunity costs measures Characteristics for Student Success
that contribute less to student success and graduation. The 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic
It also demonstrates why campus fiscal resources is Security (CARES) Act: Higher Education Emergency
significantly related to student success, especially for Relief Fund (HEERF) funding is a federal program and
historically marginalized students (Astin, 1993; Deming set of policies designed to provide fast and direct
& Walters, 2017; Webber & Ehrenburg, 2010). In other economic assistance to postsecondary students who
words, student success is not just about students – the have been negatively impacted by the COVID-19
operational decisions of higher education institutions pandemic and the institutions that enroll them.
and its capacities are just as important. However, this policy differs from past federal funding
policies because institutions accepting these funds
The example of CU Denver provides a very real were required to distribute at least 50% of the money
example of the vulnerability of RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs, directly to students as emergency student financial aid.
who are being asked to do more with funding that can The remaining percentage of funding could be used for
only be stretched so far to support large populations institutional relief. The reason for this was that many
of underrepresented students (McClure & Fryar, 2020; campuses were unprepared for the sudden shift to
Ortega et al., 2015). This is important because research online learning, and had to incur additional costs such
has shown that when institutional resources are equal as training faculty to teach online, and facilitating the
across institutions, RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs graduate relocation of students back home.
similar students at the same rates as their selective
flagships and research counterparts (Rodríguez & In addition, several campuses lacked the infrastructure,
Calderón Galdeano, 2015). The main differences being technological personnel, and technical resources to
disparities in funding and differences in the proportion suddenly switch all campus business and its courses
of underrepresented students enrolled. This points entirely online. Because of these substantial institutional

CENTERING SUPPORT | PAGE 53

 costs associated with the pandemic, campuses were marginalized students. Therefore, the policy considered
given flexibility in how they wanted to spend the that not all institutions are organizationally the same
institutional funding of the relief. At the same time, and experienced the pandemic in different ways.
institutions were required to submit detailed reporting
about how the campuses used these federal funds.
Thus, the policy was designed in a way that allowed The policy was designed in
higher education institutions with the ability to disperse
funds in ways that make sense for the specific needs
a way that allowed higher
of their students, and considers the institutional cost education institutions with the
related to accomplish this level of support.
ability to disperse funds in ways
Funding via the CARES Act was designed by the that make sense for the specific
federal government to provide funding to institutions, needs of their students, and
and its students, in a way that incorporates meaningful
considers the institutional cost
considerations of wealth-based differences among
higher education institutions. The policy included related to accomplish this
a focus on MSIs, a consideration of variations in level of support.
institutional endowments, and a set-aside, controlled
allocation to students. The design of the policy
clearly demonstrated that a specific aim of this policy Institutional Aid Spending Patterns
is to address the disproportionate socioeconomic Institutions have responded to the CARES Act funding
disadvantages and racial injustices that were in place in different ways, especially when considering the
before the pandemic outbreak and have since been institutions within the RSI, RCU, and MSI sector. Data
made worse. pulled from CARES Act HEERF reports reveals that
despite the policy having a focus on institutional relief,
MSIs have been hit the hardest by the pandemic. They RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs used CARES Act funding in
have experienced the sharpest declines in enrollment different ways to intentionally support its students (U.S.
than highly selective flagships and research universities Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2021). For
(Office for Civil Rights, 2021). Black, Indigenous, example, new research exploring how seven HSIs in
and People of Color (BIPOC) college students, who Texas used CARES Act funding found these institutions
are more likely to be enrolled at MSIs, have also adopted eligibility procedures that intentionally
shown that they are more likely to report that they considered the long- and short-term successes of their
experienced challenges in shifting to online learning students and used their own HEERF institutional funds
during the pandemic, including finding a quiet place to limit or erase student debt, provide access to wellness
to study, losing their jobs, financing their college services, and upgrade instructional and infrastructure
educations, and taking care of their families (Fishman resources (Sansone, 2023a).
& Hiler, 2020). National data also showed that
COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted BIPOC For instance, this recent research shows that the
communities in the United States, with more deaths University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) was allocated
and job loss related to the pandemic than White a $73.1 million student portion, $92.7 million institutional
Americans (Monte & Perez-Lopez, 2021; Sáenz, portion, and $10.6 million MSI portion, which totaled
2021). The inequitable financial capacities of MSIs, $176.4 million in HEERF funding (U.S. Department of
declining enrollments, lost job opportunities for Education Stabilization Fund, 2020). As of FY22, 63% of
students to pay for college, and reductions to federal the HEERF funding has been spent on helping students
and state appropriations posed even greater risks to pay their tuition and fees and pardon debt. This approach
the educational opportunities MSIs afford historically included providing students with housing refunds

PAGE 54
when dorms closed during the pandemic and providing BIPOC community, especially those enrolled at MSIs.
students with financial assistance during the pandemic Although the CARES Act policy allocates additional
to pay for the cost of tuition, food, housing, technology, funding to federally defined MSIs, some of the policy
health care, child care and course-related expenses design choices disadvantage MSIs, when compared
(University of Texas at San Antonio [UTSA], 2022). As to selective flagships and research universities. These
of December 2022, UTSA reported that they provided disadvantages are embedded in the ways in which
HEERF funds to 37,733 students and had grown their the policy utilizes common student-level metrics in
enrollment (from pre-pandemic figures) and the number the allocation of funding. CARES funding allocations
of degrees awarded (Boerger, 2022). are based, in large part, on a full-time equivalent
enrollment and Pell Grant recipient formula, which
These findings are significant given that beyond the disadvantages MSIs since they tend to enroll large
policy’s controlled allocation to students, each institution populations of students who: (a) enroll part time; (b)
could determine their own disbursement and eligibility
do not submit a free application for Federal Student
procedures. And although this could have resulted in
Aid (FAFSA); and (c) do not qualify for federal aid (i.e.,
an approach where students and their needs were left
Dreamer students) (Conrad & Gasman, 2015).
at the margins, the opposite was found. Instead, these
institutions used their direct relief aid in ways that
Also, despite the laudable efforts to tailor the policy
were intentional, centered the needs of their students,
in a way that supports underfunded institutions and
and addressed institutional resource issues that would
students, allocating funds in this way still makes the
promote long-term student success (Deming & Walters,
CARES Act a one-size-fits-all policy that does not
2017). In doing so, these HSIs were engaging in what
consider the unique characteristics of MSIs and their
Garcia, et al. (2019) have referred to as “servingness”,
students. More importantly, the CARES Act design
which are the organizational moves of an institution
and implementation does not acknowledge how the
that considers external factors like racial and wealth
inequities, to create justice and opportunity for its financial infrastructures of MSI campuses have been

students. And as demonstrated by the findings reported historically constrained by long-term municipal, state,
from UTSA, students, and the institutions they attend, and federal funding inequities. This has distributed to
are weathering the disruption caused by the pandemic. each MSI a lower share of CARES Act funding than
what is necessary to support high-need students, which
Policy Misalignments with MSIs handicapped relief efforts to the very institutions these
The CARES Act HEERF policy considerations around funds are meant to support.
wealth, socioeconomic, and racial injustices could
have long- and short-term implications for the

CENTERING SUPPORT | PAGE 55

 Why This Is a Promising Federal-State inequities and advancing underrepresented student
Partnership Finance Program success. If left unaddressed, an unequal and segregated
To address concerns over affordability, policy programs higher education system will continue to emerge
aimed at making college more affordable must whereby people of color and the poor will be limited
include commitments from both federal and state, a to attending less resourced institutions and subjected
partnership. Recently, there has been a proliferation to lower-quality instruction. And because having fewer
of attention given to one program that involves federal institutional resources results in worsening student
and state dollars working together to lower college success outcomes (Deming & Walters, 2017), not
costs—Promise programs. Overall, Promise programs considering institutional funding of RSIs, RCUs, and
disburse a combination of federal financial aid funds MSIs will continue to exasperate the disproportionate
and state (or municipal) funds to students, who affordability, wealth, and social mobility inequities that
usually live in a particular geographic area, with the occur for so many today.
intention of covering the costs of their tuition and fees
Additionally, the CARES Act design shows that when
(Li & Gándara, 2020; Perna & Leigh, 2018). Promise
nonprofit higher education institutions who have a
programs vary in their design. But regardless of its
mission to serve high populations of less privileged
design characteristics, research shows that Promise
students are given control of the institutional relief
program interventions disburse funds to students,
disbursement, these institutions will spend in ways that
losing the thread of the institution and its financial
they know will best support their students. Therefore,
needs in addressing the policy problem of college
a potential solution would be to create a one-to-one
affordability (Gándara & Li, 2020). But if we want
federal-state matching program that includes student
to create policy interventions that address broader
aid and institution relief aid restrictions, a design
inequities in higher education, we must build off and
that follows and builds off the CARES Act relief aid
learn from the positives that interventions like Promise
model and Promise programs models. This approach
programs have shown us, by creating federal-state
will not only directly support students by reducing
partnership programs that support students and the
their reliance on debt, but also maintain that those
institutions they attend.
institutions who are contributing access and social
mobility have the capacity to continue providing broad
access, quality learning, and student success.
To address concerns
over affordability, DISCUSSION AND FEDERAL-
STATE PARTNERSHIP POLICY
policy programs aimed CONSIDERATIONS
at making college more My goal in writing this report was to bring to the
affordable must include affordability conversation an awareness about how
commitments from both institutional resources matter in making college
more affordable. In doing this, I wanted to consider
federal and state, the work of RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs, who serve large
a partnership. shares of historically marginalized students, including
low-income students. And I wanted to add to the
descriptive understanding about how RSIs, RCUs, and
As such, the CARES Act HEERF funding is a promising MSIs organizationally differ from selective flagships
policy intervention that does just that—considers not and research universities, especially in terms of
only historically marginalized students, but also the financial resources, and describe how these differences
institutions, RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs, who are serving disadvantage RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs. Examining
them. Because, as demonstrated here, institutional affordability from a perspective that does not consider
relief for these institutions matter in addressing RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs and their institutional resource

PAGE 56
capacities, misses their unique strengths and potential federal-state practices identified in the CARES Act
to not only make college more affordable but also close HEERF funds and Promise programs to offer a more
racial and wealth attainment gaps in the United States. promising federal-state partnership for institutions
who are asked to educate a disproportionate share of
The contributions of RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs and their students who otherwise would have been priced out
students have been constantly compared to selective or excluded from higher education; thereby, designing
flagships and research universities, often rendering them a federal-state partnership that not only works to
incapable or ineffective. Yet, as I have demonstrated, improve affordability, but also dismantles a stratified
selective flagships and research institutions are not U.S. higher education system.
the key to educating and improving postsecondary
credentials for historically marginalized students in • Consider not only federal finance student support
the United States. Instead, RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs play but also institutional support.
a key role in our society because they are educating
more students, especially those from historically • Consider funding and supporting the institutions
who are advancing social mobility in the United
marginalized backgrounds, and offer them a pathway
States: RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs.
to a postsecondary credential. Despite this work, my
results provided descriptive evidence that shows RSIs, • Consider direct delivery of funds to campuses
RCUs, and MSIs are not resourced sufficiently, and this but include clarity about funding restrictions
harms them in their ability to help more students from and guidelines.
less privileged backgrounds. Disparities were found
between the sectors of RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs, and • Use allocation metrics that align with the unique
institutional characteristics of RSIs, RCUs, and
selective flagships and research institutions with regards
MSIs (e.g., use full-time headcount, not full-time
to institutional resources, funding levels, tuition and fees,
equivalent).
and access to federal grants.
• Consider using institutional reporting procedures
Overall, my findings demonstrated how inequities that identify how each institution spent their funds.
are embedded within the postsecondary educational
funding system – advantaging and rewarding students • Consider not penalizing states that invest more in
who are already financially privileged as well as the their MSIs than other states.
institutions they attend. It also challenges conceptions
• Consider using strong language that makes clear
of affordability that only considers direct supports
that this funding is intended to supplement funding
to students by showing the relationship between packages, not supplant state investment.
institutional resources, affordability, and student success
outcomes. This study also demonstrated that the most Attending to these considerations has the possibility
vulnerable students who need supports to afford and to create a one-to-one match federal-state partnership
be successful in college are overrepresented among program that is reciprocal in nature, and where federal,
RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs. These institutions are being state, and colleges might be more likely to improve
asked to do more with less, contributing to a stratified
college affordability and student success.
higher education system with clear winners and losers.
Therefore, policy discussions about affordability need
to consider this group of colleges and universities, and
acknowledge their differences and contributions.

To address this problem, I have outlined key takeaways

for consideration in the design of a one-to-one match
federal-state partnership program that centers the
work of RSIs, RCUs, and MSIs, has equity perspectives,
and avoids deficit frames. This approach builds off the

CENTERING SUPPORT | PAGE 57

 References
Aisch, G., Buchanan, L., Cox, A., & Quely, K. (2017, Chen, R., & DesJardins, S. L. (2010). Investigating the
January 18). Some colleges have more students from impact of financial aid on student dropout risks:
the top 1 percent than the bottom 60. Find yours. Racial and ethnic differences. The Journal of Higher
The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/ Education, 81(2), 179-208.
interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-
more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the- Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Saez, E., Turner, N., & Yagan,
bottom-60.html D. (2017). Mobility report cards: The role of colleges
in intergenerational mobility. Retrieved from http://
Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges (2022). www.equality-of-opportunity.org/papers/coll_mrc_
Introducing our nation’s Rural-Serving Postsecondary paper.pdf
Institutions. https://www.regionalcolleges.org/
project/ruralserving Crisp, G., McClure, K. R., & Orphan, C. M. (2021).
Introduction: Broadly accessible colleges and
Archibald, R. B., & Feldman, D. H. (2012). The anatomy of universities. In K. R. McClure, C. M. Orphan, &
college tuition. Washington: DC, American Council G Crisp (Eds.), Unlocking opportunity: Toward a
on Education. counter-narrative of Broadly Accessible Institutions
(pp. 3–17). Routledge.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical
years revisited. Jossey-Bass. CU Denver. (2022). Towards achieving vision 2030.
https://www.ucdenver.edu/achieving2030#ac-how-i-
Boerger, M. (2022, December 5). UTSA distributes $4.2 stay-informed-15
million to aid students in final semester of relief
funding program. UTSA Today. https://www.utsa. Deming, D. J., and Walters, C. R. (2017). The impact of
edu/today/2022/12/story/HEERF-fall-2022.html price caps and spending cuts on U.S. postsecondary
attainment. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Brundin, J. (2022, December 1). CU Denver faculty and Economic Research Working Paper 23736.
staff want answers about large budget shortfall. CPR
News. https://www.cpr.org/2022/12/01/university- Excelencia in Education. (2020). 25 years of Hispanic-
colorado-denver-budget-shortfall/ Serving Institutions: A glance on progress. https://
www.edexcelencia.org/research/publications/25-yrs-
Calderón Galdeano, E., Flores, A. R., & Moder, J. (2012). hsis-glance-progress
The Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities
and Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Partners in the Fishman, R., & Hiler, T. (2020, September 2). New polling
advancement of Hispanic higher education. Journal from New America and Third Way on COVID-19’s
of Latinos and Education, 11(3), 157-162. impact on current and future college students. Third
Way. https://www.thirdway.org/memo/new-polling-
Carnevale, A. P., Schmidt, P., & Strohl, J. (2020). The merit from-new-america-third-way-on-covid-19s-impact-
myth: How our colleges favor the rich and divide on-current-and-future-college-students
America. The New Press.
Flores, S. M., & Shepherd, J. C. (2014). Pricing out the
Castro Samayao, A., (2022). Minority-Serving Institutions: disadvantaged? The effect of tuition deregulation
Current policies and future actions. In N. Hillman & G. in Texas public four year institutions. The ANNALS
Orfield (Eds.), (2022). Civil rights and federal higher of the American Academy of Political and Social
education (pp. 127–142). Harvard Education Press. Science, 655(1), 99–122.

Conrad, C., & Gasman, M. (2015). Educating a diverse Fryar, A. H. (2015). The comprehensive university: How it
nation: Lessons from Minority Serving Institutions. came to be and what it is now. In M. Schneider & K.
Harvard University Press. C. Deane (Eds.), The university next door: What is a
comprehensive university, who does it educate, and
can it survive? (pp. 19–42). Teachers College Press.

PAGE 58
References
Gándara, D., & Li, A. (2020). Promise for whom? ‘‘Free- Hossler D., Ziskin M., Gross J. P. K., Kim S., & Cekic
college’’ programs and enrollments by race and O. (2009). Student aid and its role in encouraging
gender classifications at public, 2-year colleges. persistence. In Smart J. (Ed.), Higher education:
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(4), Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 24, pp.
603–627. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0162373720962472 389–426). Springer.

Garcia, G. A., Nuñez, A., & Sansone, V. A. (2019). Howard, G., Weinstein, R., & Yang, Y. (2021). Do
Toward a multidimensional conceptual framework universities improve local economic resilience?.
for understanding “servingness” in Hispanic-serving IZA Discussion Paper No. 14422, http://dx.doi.
institutions: A synthesis of the research. Review of org/10.2139/ssrn.3865447
Educational Research, 89(5), 745–784. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0034654319864591 Howard, G., Weinstein, R., & Yang, Y. (2022). “Workhorses
of opportunity”: Regional universities increase local
Goldrick-Rab, S. (2016). Paying the price: College costs, social mobility. IZA Discussion Paper No. 15622,
financial aid, and the betrayal of the American http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4244417
dream. University of Chicago Press.
Koricich, A., Sansone, V. A., Fryar, A. H. (2022). Rural-
Guilbeau, J.P. (2022). Institutional student diversity in Serving Institutions aren’t who you think they are.
higher education: Are alumni part of the equation? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 54(3), 28-
Philanthropy & Education 5(2), 56-91. https://www. 33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2022.2054181
muse.jhu.edu/article/856419.
Li, A. Y., & Gándara, D. (2020). The ‘‘promise’’ of free
Gura, D. (2022, November 10). As Harvard’s endowment tuition at public two-year colleges: Impacts on
abandons fossil fuels, oil-rich University of Texas student enrollment. In L. Perna & E. Smith (Eds.),
catches up. National Public Radio. https://www. Improving research-based knowledge of college
npr.org/2022/11/10/1133554526/harvard-texas- promise programs (pp. 219–240). American
endowment-oil-gas-billions-colleges-universities- Educational Research Association. https://doi.
fundraising org/10.2307/j.ctvxw3phv.13

Harris, Adam. The state must provide: Why America’s Maxim, R., Muro, M., & You, Y. (2022). New legislation and
colleges have always been unequal—and how to set research reaffirm the importance of regional public
them right. (2021). Ecco. universities for local economies. Brookings. https://
www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2022/11/18/new-
Herder, L. (2022, May 13). The struggle for dual identity: legislation-and-research-reaffirm-the-importance-of-
MSI grant restrictions. Diverse: Issues in Higher regional-public-universities-for-local-economies/
Education. https://www.diverseeducation.com/
institutions/msis/article/15291994/the-struggle-for- McClure, K. R., Orphan, C. M., & Crisp, G. (2021),
dual-identity-msi-grant-restrictions-and-the-aapi- Unlocking opportunity: Toward a counter-narrative of
community Broadly Accessible Institutions. Routledge.

Hillman, N., (2022). How accountability can increase McClure, K. R., & Fryar, A. H. (2020). Vulnerable, fragile,
racial inequality: The case of federal risk sharing. In and endangered? Financial rhetoric and reality
N. Hillman & G. Orfield (Eds.), (2022). Civil rights at regional public universities. New Directions for
and federal higher education (pp. 107–126). Harvard Higher Education, 2020(190), 41-58. https://doi.
Education Press. org/10.1002/he.20366

Hillman, N., & Orfield, G. (Eds.). (2022). Civil rights and

federal higher education. Harvard Education Press.

CENTERING SUPPORT | PAGE 59

 References
Monte, L. M., & Perez-Lopez, D. J. (2021). COVID-19 for Research on Regional Colleges. https://www.
Pandemic hit Black households harder than White regionalcolleges.org/project/20th-anniversary-
households, even when pre-pandemic socio- update-of-aascus-stewards-of-place
economic disparities are taken into account. U.S.
Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/ Ortega, N., Frye, J., Nellum, C., Kamimura, A., &
stories/2021/07/how-pandemic-affected-black-and- Vidal-Rodríguez, A. (2015). Examining the financial
white-households.html resilience of Hispanic-Serving Institutions. In A.-M.
Núñez, S. Hurtado, & E. Calderón Galdeano (Eds.),
Mustaffa, J. B. & Davis, J. (2021). Jim Crow debt: How Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Advancing research
Black borrowers experience student loans. The and transformative practice (pp. 155-176). Routledge.
Education Trust. https://edtrust.org/resource/jim-
crow-debt/ Perna, L. W. (Ed.). (2010). Understanding the working
college student: New research and its implications
Mustaffa, J. B., & Dawson, C. (2021). Racial capitalism for policy and practice. Stylus.
and the Black student loan debt crisis. Teachers
College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Perna, L. W., & Leigh, E. (2018). Understanding the
Education, 123(6), 1–28. https://doi. org/10.1177% promise: A typology of state and local college
2F016146812112300601 promise programs. Educational Researcher, 47(3),
155–180. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17742653
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine. (2019). Minority Serving Institutions: Philips, C. (Host). (2022, February 7). ‘I don’t like owing
America’s Underutilized Resource for Strengthening anybody money’ (No. 2). [Audio episode podcast]. In
the STEM Workforce. The National Academies Press. The Enduring Gap. Texas Public Radio. https://www.
https://doi.org/10.17226/25257 tpr.org/podcast/the-enduring-gap/2022-02-07/ep-2-
i-dont-like-owing-people-money
Office for Civil Rights. (2021). Education in a pandemic:
The disparate impacts of COVID-19 on American’s Rendón, L., Dowd, A., & Nora, A. (2012). Priced out:
students. U.S. Department of Education. https:// A close look at postsecondary affordability for
www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/20210608- Latinos. Washington, DC: The Higher Education
impacts-of-covid19.pdf Subcommittee on President Barack Obama’s Advisory
Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanics.
Orfield, G. (2018). Obama’s accountability policies: A case
study in frustration. In G. Orfield, & N. Hillman (Eds.), Rodríguez, A., & Calderón Galdeano, E. (2015). Do
Accountability and opportunity in higher education: Hispanic-serving institutions really underperform?
The civil rights dimension (pp. 23–44). Harvard Using propensity score matching to compare
Education Press. outcomes of Hispanic-serving and non-Hispanic-
serving institutions. In A.-M. Núñez, S. Hurtado,
Orfield, G., & Hillman, N. (2018). Accountability and & E. Calderón Galdeano (Eds.), Hispanic-serving
opportunity in higher education: The civil rights institutions: Advancing research and transformative
dimension. Harvard Education Press. practice (pp. 196–217). Routledge.

Orphan, C. M. (2020). Not all Regional Public Universities Rosinger, K., Kelchen, R., Baker, D. J., Ortagus, J., &
strive for prestige: Examining and strengthening Lingo, M. D. (2022). State higher education funding
mission-centeredness within a vital sector. New during covid-19: Lessons from prior recessions and
Directions for Higher Education, 2020(190), 9-24. implications for equity. AERA Open, 8. https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20364 org/10.1177/23328584221091277

Orphan, C. M., & McClure, K. R. (2022). Recommitting

to stewardship of place: Creating and sustaining
thriving communities for the decades ahead. Alliance

PAGE 60
References
Sáenz, R. (2021, April 15). A milestone of misery: More Orphan, & G. Crisp. (Eds.), Unlocking opportunity:
than 100k US Latinos have died from COVID-19. Toward a counter-narrative of Broadly Accessible
Latino Rebels. https://www.latinorebels. Institutions (pp. 213–226). Routledge.
com/2021/04/15/amilestoneofmisery/
Taylor, B. J., Cantwell, B., Watts, K., & Wood, O. (2020).
Sansone, V. A. (2017). Examining the association of Partisanship, white racial resentment, and state
financial aid factors on the persistence of Latina/o support for higher education. The Journal of Higher
college students at a Hispanic-serving institution: Education, 91(6), 858–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/0
A discrete-time hazard model (Publication No. 0221546.2019.1706016
10279253). [Doctoral dissertation, The University of
Texas at San Antonio]. ProQuest One Academic. The University of Texas at Austin (2023). Land and mineral
interests. https://utexas.planmygift.org/land-and-
Sansone, V. A. (2023a). Can relief aid restore justice for mineral-interests
Latinxs in uncertain times?: An exploration of CARES
Act Funding policies and postsecondary funding The University of Texas at San Antonio (2022). UTSA and
systems among Hispanic-Serving Institutions in Texas. the higher education emergency relief fund. https://
Intercultural Development Research Association. www.utsa.edu/heerf/

Sansone, V. A. (2023b). The policy implications of being U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
a steward of place. American Association of State Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics
Colleges and Universities. (2022). Table 301.20.: Historical summary of faculty,
enrollment, degrees conferred, and finances in
Santiago, D. A. (2013). Using a Latino lens to reimagine degree-granting postsecondary institutions: Selected
aid design and delivery. Washington: DC, Excelencia years, 1869-70 through 2019-20. In U.S. Department
in Education. of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Statistics (Eds.), Digest
Shermer, E. T. (2021). Indentured students: How of Education Statistics (2022 ed.). https://nces.
government-guaranteed loans left generations ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_301.20.asp.
drowning in college debt. Harvard University Press.
U.S. Department of Education, Education Stabilization
State Higher Education Executive Officers Association Fund (2020). Higher education emergency relief fund
(2022). SHEF: State higher education finance, FY (HEERF). https://covid-relief-data.ed.gov/
2021. https://shef.sheeo.org/report/
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2022).
Stevens, M. L. (2009). Creating a class: College COVID-19: Emergency financial aid for college
admissions and the education of elites. Harvard students under the CARES Act. https://www.gao.
University Press. gov/products/gao-21-312r

Tachine, A. R., & Cabrera, N. L. (2021). “I’ll be right Webber, D. A., and Ehrenberg, R. A. (2010). “Do
behind you”: Native American families, land debt, expenditures other than instructional expenditures
and college affordability. AERA Open, 7. https://doi. affect graduation and persistence rates in American
org/10.1177/23328584211025522 higher education? Economics of Education Review,
29(6), 947-958
Taylor, B. J., & Cantwell, B. (2019). Unequal higher
education: Wealth, status and student opportunity.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Taylor, B. J., & Cantwell, B. (2021). Broad access institutions

in crisis? Institutional vulnerability, state divestment,
and the racial graduation gap. In K. R. McClure, C. M.

CENTERING SUPPORT | PAGE 61

 05 Improving and
Using Data to Close
Success Gaps
BY: DAVID R. TROUTMAN

ABSTRACT
In the early 2000s, the U.S. Department of Education
provided grants to states to develop new statewide
longitudinal data systems (SLDSs) that would help states
collect and use P-20W data. Today, several states have
SLDS that report postsecondary outcomes, and most states
provide annual reports on student progress by state, sector,
institution type, and institution. However, not all states link
their P-12, postsecondary, and workforce data sets together,
and the types of data collected and linkages between
data vary by state, making it difficult to attain a deeper
understanding of factors that affect student outcomes.

PAGE 62
This paper will explore what longitudinal data or data factor for why individuals’ perceptions of the value
actions the federal government should incentivize states of education have lowered is because people are not
to collect, link, report, and take action to enable federal experiencing the same types of returns to education
and state higher education leaders and policymakers to compared to their peers.
create positive levers of change (e.g., track the impact
of funding, policy changes, curricular changes, etc.) to Studies have found that wealth inequalities create
reduce success gaps that exist in higher education. barriers to education and social mobility (Braga,
McKernan, Ratcliffe, & Baum, 2017). For example, even
INTRODUCTION when students of color and women complete a college
The American Dream has been a long-standing degree, they are not reaping the same economic
societal compact between individuals and education, benefits that White men experience. Earnings gaps for
emphasizing that individuals who work hard and receive people of color and women have existed for decades.
an education will experience increased opportunities Troutman and Creusere (2021) linked earnings data
and prosperity (e.g., economic and non-economic (i.e., Unemployment Insurance Wage Records) with
value). Several studies have demonstrated educational higher education data. They found that after students
credentials’ impact on lifelong economic growth who received a bachelor’s degree, White and Asian
(Carnevale, Rose, & Cheah, 2013) and the increased men earn more than women and students who are
likelihood of upward income mobility in our society African American and Hispanic. Earnings gaps were
(Chetty, Friedman, Saez, Turner, & Yagan, 2017). even more evident in STEM-related fields of study. For
However, economic and non-economic values are example, one year after receiving the same degree in
not equitable, and these inequities skew Americans’ computers, statistics, or mathematics, people of color
perceptions of the value of education. Based on the earned $7,000 less than White students. This earning
2019 Gallup survey, 46% of individuals are dissatisfied gap only increases over time for students of color. By
with the quality of K-12 education in the U.S. Only 53% the 10th year in the workforce, African American and
of survey respondents indicated that a college education Hispanic graduates earn $30,000 less per year than
is very important (Gallup, 2019). Even more problematic their White peers.
is the rating on the importance of college education has
dramatically dropped by 17 points in just six short years.
One possible factor for why
There are several factors (e.g., college affordability,
individuals’ perceptions of
opportunity costs, and college loan debt amounts) for
why there is a decline in perceptions of educational the value of education have
quality and importance. One factor to consider is the lowered is because people
inequitable educational and workforce outcomes for
are not experiencing the
students of color, women, students from low-income
families, and other marginalized groups. For example, same types of returns to
the Center on Education and the Workforce at education compared to
Georgetown University (Carnevale, 2021) found that
children from low-income families who score in the top
their peers.
half of their class in kindergarten only have a 31 percent
likelihood of receiving a four-year college degree and We can use the power of longitudinal data to help
finding a job by age 25. In contrast, students from shine a light on outcome disparities that exist.
more high-income families (top income quartile) who Moreover, we can use data insights to enhance policies
score in the bottom half of their class have a 71 percent and increase funding to provide equitable resources
likelihood of achieving the same outcome (Carnevale, for individuals to thrive in our society. This paper will
Fasules, Quinn, & Campbell, 2019). One possible explore what longitudinal data the federal government

USING DATA TO CLOSE SUCCESS GAPS | PAGE 63

 should incentivize states to collect, link, report, and For additional information on the SLDS Grant Program,
take action to allow federal and state higher education please visit https://nces.ed.gov/programs/SLDS.
leaders and policymakers to create positive levers Forty-nine states and other U.S. territories (e.g., Puerto
of change (e.g., track the impact of funding, policy Rico, Virgin Islands, and Guam) have received at least
changes, curricular changes, etc.) to reduce success one SLDS grant. Multiple states have received two or
gaps that exist in higher education. I will briefly review more grants, with the state of Pennsylvania receiving
the Department of Education’s past funding efforts to the most with five grants. The only state that has not
create and enhance SLDSs. I will describe the current received funding is New Mexico.
status of SLDSs (types of data collected and how those
data are applied). I will discuss the language used to In May 2022, the IES SLDS Grant Program established
describe equity and disparities in student success an SLDS FY2019 Equity Workgroup and released the
outcomes. Lastly, I will introduce possible longitudinal first of a series of four briefs highlighting the equity
data items and actions that the federal government road map that will be used to identify and address
should consider funding SLDSs to close success gaps. equity (Gillaspy, et al., 2022). The workgroup did
not provide a clear definition of equity but instead
suggested that equity is multidimensional. They stated
Forty-nine states and that equity could be all or part of the following:

other U.S. territories “...parity among student groups in terms of

education access and outcomes; a fit between
(e.g., Puerto Rico, Virgin available resources and student needs; and

Islands, and Guam) have adequate effort to lessen the effects of structural
disadvantages that disproportionally affect different
received at least one student groups” (Gillaspy, et al., 2022).

SLDS grant. The workgroup suggested that SLDS teams work with
equity offices or equity officers, engage with existing
SLDS stakeholders, obtain insight from individuals
EVOLUTION OF THE SLDS the data represents, and use resources from the
GRANT PROGRAM Common Education Data Standards to help craft
From 2006 to 2019, the U.S. Department of your equity definition. Based on the most recent
Education’s National Center for Education Statistics SLDS funding (2019), the Virginia Department of
(NCES) Institute of Education Sciences (IES) awarded Education used its funding to create SLDS equity-
more than $825 million to 142 grantees through focused research questions. As a part of the effort, the
seven competitive grant cycles (Institute of Education Virginia Longitudinal Data System (VLDS) released the
Sciences, 2020). Earlier grant cycles (e.g., 2006 and VLDS research agenda, which included a promising
2007) funded states to establish K-12 data systems. example of a definition of equity. They defined equity
Grants awarded in 2009, 2009 the American as “the creation of opportunities for historically
Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), and 2012, underrepresented populations to have equal access
requested that grantees focus on including additional and equitable opportunity. Equity is also the process
data from either pre-kindergarten, postsecondary, of allocating resources, programs, and opportunities
workforce, or teacher-student data to their existing to employees, customers, and residents, to address
SLDSs. In 2015, the grant requirements shifted focus historical discrimination and existing imbalances”
from integrating new data to using data in specific (VLDS, 2021). Virginia took advantage of its latest SLDS
areas (e.g., educator talent management, college and funding to integrate equity within the VLDS operating
career, evaluation and research). In the most recent culture. Next, we will examine the current status of
grant release in 2019, grantees were required to focus SLDSs in terms of the data they are collecting and how
on either infrastructure, equity, or education choice. they are used.

PAGE 64
CURRENT STATUS OF SLDSs choose from (not answered, not planned, operational,
NCES-IES distributes a survey to all SLDS in progress, and planned) and to respond to five
administrators to capture what is happening in the different data-use cases: 1) resources for the public,
field. The 2018 survey (most recent) surveyed 48 states parents, and community members, 2) policy updates/
and territories. Based on the survey questions, we can changes, 3) instructional support, 4) funding decisions,
dive deeper into what types of K-12, postsecondary and 5) curriculum decisions/materials. Due to the
education, and workforce data at the student-level purposes of this paper, I will focus on the percentage
are included in the SLDSs. A high percentage of of states that responded with “not planned” by
(>80%) states have the following data points that are data-use cases. Most states who responded have not
fully functional in SLDSs: demographics, grade level, planned to use SLDS data to enhance curriculum
school enrollment and completion, transfer in/out, decisions/materials across all data sectors (e.g., 55%:
homelessness status, dropout history, attendance, K-12 student; 65%: postsecondary; 73%: Perkins
and assessments (statewide summative). A moderate Career and Technical Education (CTE); and 63%:
percentage (61% to 78%) of states account for the early childhood). More than 50 percent of SLDSs have
following types of data in SLDSs: for other program “not planned” to use the data for instructional support
participation (e.g., free and reduced lunch, Title 1, within the postsecondary and early childhood sectors.
English language learners, and special education And more than a third of the states are not using
programs), in-state dual enrollment, diploma/certificate, SLDS data to enhance policy for the postsecondary,
course enrollment, assessments: college readiness, workforce, Perkins CTE, and early childhood sectors.
course completion, migrant status, virtual school/ Surprisingly, almost one out of four SLDSs reported
learning, discipline, assessments: not by grade/subject, not planning on using the K-12 student data to improve
and assessments: A.P. scores. Even fewer states have policy. Almost half of the SLDSs do not plan on using
data on assessments: kindergarten entry (45%), out- data to inform instructional support for postsecondary,
of-state dual enrollment (35%), assessments: statewide Perkins CTE, and early childhood.
benchmark (33%), assessments: local benchmark
(24%), and instructional methods used in the Understanding how many states link K-12 student
classroom (8%) (NCES, 2021). Now we have a sense of data in the SLDS to other data sources (e.g., K-12
what types of data are linked, we can now explore how teacher, postsecondary, workforce, Perkins CTE, and
SLDS are using the data for decision-making. early childhood) is crucial. The following percentages
identify the states that have data fully functional (i.e.,
SLDSs responded to the following questions: “How automated links) by sector of data: K-12 teacher (43%),
do states and territories use data for reporting and postsecondary (51%), workforce (31%), Perkins CTE
decision-making?” States were given five responses to (53%), and early childhood (53%).

USING DATA TO CLOSE SUCCESS GAPS | PAGE 65

 Based on the State Higher Education
Executives Officers Association (SHEEO)’s
Strong Foundations survey in 2020 (SHEEO, 2020):

• 43 states • 23 states
currently link or plan currently link or plan to
to link K-12 data with link postsecondary data
postsecondary data to early childhood data

• 43 states • 44 states
currently link or plan have access to remedial
to link postsecondary data course information
to workforce data For additional information, please visit SHEEO’s
interactive tool to examine the survey results

34 states
(https://postsecondarydata.sheeo.org/data/). A
further evaluation of the current status of SLDSs
• was conducted by the Education Commission of

can access both K-12 and the States (Jamieson, von Zastrow, & Perez Jr.,
2021). It can be found at the following web location:
workforce data elements https://www.ecs.org/state-longitudinal-data-systems/.

The IES SLDS Grant program has significantly to ensure continuity in data-sharing efforts; 2) the political
contributed to ensuring states have the resources to landscape can impact priorities which can result in
create and enhance SLDSs. However, much more financial barriers (i.e., budget constraints) to ensure data
work must be done to ensure all states link data are connected, and 3) ongoing public concerns on privacy
together to inform policy, practice, and outcomes. and appropriate uses of the data. One way to combat
Along with the progress, connecting data has its these ongoing battles is to create state laws (e.g., Kentucky,
challenges and limitations. Perez (2017) noted the Maryland, and Texas) requiring continuing support to
following types of issues could impede SLDS: 1) maintain and enhance longitudinal data (DQC, 2022).
capacity issues with staff turnover in state agencies SLDSs have limitations based on geographic restrictions.

PAGE 66
It only captures within-state data on student outcomes Throughout the remainder of the paper, I will use the
and might exclude students who do not attend public term “success gaps” rather than “equity gaps.” That does
school or students who relocated to a state as a teenager not mean I am excluding equity from the conversation;
or young adults (Hough Jr & Beard, 2017). Hough and instead, I will be placing success gaps within the
Beard (2017) also argue that SLDSs should broaden the context of equity. To eliminate success gaps that exist in
quantitative and qualitative metrics to quantify student society, we must use the power of longitudinal data to
success (e.g., exposure to new ideas and job satisfaction). resolve inequitable policies, practices, resources, and
I need to emphasize the importance for states to opportunities that exist in our community.
enhance data collection on student-level workforce data
(i.e., unemployment insurance wage records). Specifically,
only a couple of states in the country collect data on the Their goals are to
location of employment, occupational title, and hours strengthen agency-wide
worked. This information is critical to have a deeper
understanding of the local, regional, and state workforce
data governance, build
needs. This review highlights several blind spots for human capacity to leverage
SLDSs to focus on, especially when considering equity data, advance the strategic
and equitable outcomes. I will now propose additional
longitudinal data to expand on what the Department
use of data, and improve
of Education introduced in 2019 regarding equity and data access, transparency,
how we can close success gaps among various groups of and privacy.
students. Before I introduce the proposed longitudinal
data, I first want to address the language we use to
describe the disparities in educational and economic LONGITUDINAL DATA NEEDED
outcomes. TO CLOSE SUCCESS GAPS
We are approaching 20 years since the federal
THE POWER OF LANGUAGE: government first awarded states competitive grants
SUCCESS GAPS VERSUS to implement longitudinal data systems. Within that
EQUITY GAPS time, the federal government’s investment to create
For several years, educational professionals have been and enhance SLDSs is getting close to $1 billion. In
displaying differences in educational outcomes by 2018, the Department of Education was charged to be
students’ characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, stewards of data to “improve the collection, analysis,
family income, etc.) and referring to them as equity and use of high-quality data and evidence” through
gaps. Bensimon and Spiva (2022) state that we must the passage and enforcement of the Foundations for
reframe using the term “equity gaps” to describe Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Fortelny
disparities in education outcomes by race/ethnicity, & Soldner, 2021). It is exciting to see the evolution of
gender, and income. They argue that by using the grant requirements from creating data linkages to data
term “equity gaps,” professionals unintentionally blame actions. However, additional work must be done to
educational outcomes’ differences on students. They identify data that will inform and close success gaps.
suggest a more appropriate term to use is “institutional
performance gaps.” Institutional performance gaps Based on the Foundations for Evidence-Based
are shifting the ownership away from students and Policymaking Act and the Federal Data Strategy,
toward the educational settings where student groups in 2020, the Department of Education released its
are embedded. Others suggest using the words like data strategy (U.S. Department of Education, 2020).
“success gaps” and “achievement gaps” to highlight Their goals are to: 1) strengthen agency-wide data
differences in educational outcomes by examining governance, 2) build human capacity to leverage data,
inequitable resources experienced by students 3) advance the strategic use of data, and 4) improve
(O’Hara, Munk, Reynolds, & Collins, 2021). data access, transparency, and privacy. This act and

USING DATA TO CLOSE SUCCESS GAPS | PAGE 67

 other actions in the Department can significantly health and academic achievement. The WSCC
impact how students succeed through the K-20 to measures provide a wide range of sectors that can
workforce pipeline. However, within the 23-page work together to enhance students’ physical health
Federal Data Strategy report, the Department of and cognitive development. While SLDSs might not
Education never mentions equity, equitable outcomes, have the resources to achieve such a comprehensive
or success gaps. That is problematic because we must approach, some SLDSs have already begun linking
intertwine equity and equity-mindedness into strategic these data. For example, Rhode Island’s Statewide
plans, goal settings, data collections, research agendas, Longitudinal Data System (R.I. DataHUB) has created
and evaluation plans to improve success gaps and a holistic, longitudinal data system with more than
prevent inequitable allocation of resources (Bensimon, 11 partnering agencies with more than 30 years of
Rueda, Dowd, & Harris III, 2007). data. The partners in this initiative comprise several
organizations, including Rhode Island’s Department of
What types of longitudinal data are needed to close Education, Office of the Postsecondary Commissioner,
success gaps? That is such a complex question to Department of Labor and Training, the Governor’s
answer. However, part of the answer to this is not Workforce Board, Department of Children, Youth
about collecting as much data as possible so that we and Families, Department of Health, Secretary of
can achieve a “big data” status but instead collecting State, Housing Resources Commission, College
the right types of data needed for positive change Crusade (which is a comprehensive college readiness
(Busteed, 2016) and pushing the states to ask the right program), City of Providence, and the City of Central
types of questions and use cases. Two frameworks/ Falls. These robust datasets enable agencies to work
models have guided my perspective on identifying together to solve complex problems. Moreover, these
longitudinal data needed to close success gaps—the data allow for creating data narratives (e.g., education
Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child and workforce outcomes for young mothers) that are
(WSCC) Model developed by the Centers for Disease publicly accessible (https://datasparkri.org/young-
Control and Prevention (ASCD & CDC, 2007) and the mothers-in-ri). These reports provide a unique look
Postsecondary Value Framework (Figure 1) developed at specific groups of individuals who need specialized
by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) resources to succeed while pursuing their education
and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) aspirations resulting in finding a job.
(IHEP & BMGF, 2021).
The Postsecondary Value Framework (PVF) recognizes
WSCC MEASURES the value of education in benefiting students and
society. The framework identifies an equitable value
1. Physical education and physical activity
pipeline for Black, Hispanic, Indigenous, Asian
2. Nutrition environment and services
American/Pacific Islanders (AAPI), students from
3. Health education
low-income backgrounds, and women, as well as the
4. Social and emotional climate intersectional identities within and across these groups.
5. Physical environment The framework allows for examining equitable access,
6. Health services equitable affordability, equitable support, equitable
7. Counseling, psychological and social services completion, equitable earnings, and equitable wealth.
8. Employee wellness This pipeline benefits both students and society. The
9. Community involvement framework also recognizes the value of education and
10. Family engagement its impacts on individuals (e.g., student well-being,
student learning outcomes and skills, student social
The WSCC Model provides a holistic approach to justice agency) and society (e.g., public health, civic
highlighting the students’ ecosystem (e.g., families, engagement, economic and cultural vitality, workforce
schools, communities, public health, and health care) diversity and pay equity, and public revenues and gross
of support and resources that will result in positive domestic product). Based on the WSCC Model and

PAGE 68
FIGURE 1:
The Postsecondary Value Framework

Source: Developed by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) (IHEP
& BMGF, 2021, pg. 29). https://postsecondaryvalue.org/reports/

PVF and the review of the current status of SLDS, I will gender, family income status by year (e.g., K-12 Free/
provide a list of possible longitudinal data items and reduced lunch; Postsecondary-Pell status: Pell ever,
data actions needed to close success gaps. Pell at entry,), dependency status (i.e., can the student
claim financial independence from parent or guardian
DATA ITEM OR DATA ACTION by year of enrollment, people with disabilities status,
RECOMMENDATIONS first generation status, students who are parents,
multilingual learner, student credential status (e.g., high
Student Demographics
school diploma, certificate, associate’s, bachelor’s, and
Data Item/Action 1: Establish a recommended list graduate degree) and geographical location (e.g., region
of operationalized defined (i.e., when appropriate by of state, metropolitan area, county, city/town, and U.S.
using the Common Education Data Standards) student Census tract).
demographics linked to all state outcome measures
Data Strategy: Student demographic information
and educational and workforce milestones.
can be either static or dynamic (i.e., changing over
Data Definition: Student demographics would time). It is crucial to operationalize and capture
include: race/ethnicity, gender (e.g., male, female, and these data every year and not have the expectation
non-binary), intersectionality of race/ethnicity and that demographic data are fixed. When reporting

USING DATA TO CLOSE SUCCESS GAPS | PAGE 69

 race/ethnicity, it is recommended not to use Strategies should be developed to capture resource
Underrepresented Minority Status (URM) but instead, equity data accurately. When analyzing such data,
use the race or ethnicity reported by students. create an analytical approach to select a suitable
However, there needs to be intentionality when unit of analysis (e.g., student, school, district, region,
using race and ethnicity categories and we need state). Resource equity should be linked with student
to go beyond the federal definitions and look at outcomes and educational milestones at the student
the complexity of two or more races and Hispanic level and disaggregated by student demographics to
categories. Certain race/ethnicity groups can be determine success gaps. Conversely, student outcomes
possibly masked or hidden when using federal or or milestones should be analyzed by resource equity
state race/ethnicity categories. For example, students to determine which dimensions of resource equity play
who report both Hispanic and Asian American will be a role in student success. Resource equity measures
categorized as Hispanic. When disaggregating data should be tracked longitudinally to determine short-
and using an intersectional approach, there can be term and long-term impacts on student outcomes.
tension between a person’s anonymity (i.e., remaining
FERPA compliant) versus a person’s authenticity.
Equitable Earnings by Educational Credential
Protecting students’ identities is critical, but allowing
individuals who need to see the data to enhance policy Data Item/Action 3: Establish equitable earnings
and practice is just as important. To close success metrics and thresholds by incorporating the
gaps, we must be transparent when linking student Postsecondary Value Framework into the SLDSs when
demographics with education and workforce outcomes examining economic success gaps with K20-W data.
and do our best to provide disaggregated metrics.
Value Proposition: The Postsecondary Value
Framework established a series of economic return
Resource Equity thresholds that assist in identifying economic success
Data Item/Action 2: Establish a standardized measure gaps once students exit their postsecondary education
of resource equity within the K-12 sector. and enter the workforce (Figure 2) (IHEP & BMGF, 2021,
pg. 14). By linking the postsecondary education data
Value Proposition: Resource equity is a with workforce earnings data, you can begin to examine
multidimensional construct providing direct and earnings differences (i.e., success gaps) that exist by
indirect resources and opportunities that can impact student demographics (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender,
students’ educational experiences (Alliance for and family income). Students’ earnings outcomes are
Resource Equity, 2022). Resource equity consists of placed in context using a series of thresholds. Based on
10 dimensions within the K-12 sector: school funding, data limitations, only Threshold 0: Minimum Economic
teaching quality and diversity, school leadership
Return, Threshold 1: Earning Premium, Threshold 2:
quality and diversity, empowering rigorous content,
Earnings Parity, and Threshold 3: Economic Mobility can
instructional time and attention, positive and inviting
be measured using SLDS postsecondary to workforce
school climate, student supports and intervention,
data linkages. Threshold 0 measures whether students
high-quality learning, learning-ready facilities, and
earn at least as much as a high school student plus
diverse classrooms and schools. These measures can
enough to recoup their student investment within
be a powerful way to identify resources needed to
10 years. Threshold 1 signals where students make at
close the success gap within K-12. For more
least the median earnings in their field of study after
detailed descriptions and to operationalize the
graduation. Threshold 2 uses earnings data to determine
definition of each measure and a diagnostic tool
if students reach earnings amounts that compare
developed by Alliance Education Resource Equity,
to more advantaged peers (White people, men, and
please refer to the following website:
high-income students). Threshold 3 provides a social
https://www.educationresourceequity.org.
mobility threshold to identify whether students reach
Data Strategy: SLDSs should conduct a landscape earnings outcomes that will place them in the
analysis to determine if any resource equity dimensions fourth income quintile, regardless of their field
are accounted for in their current SLDS data. of study. Threshold 4: Economic Security and

PAGE 70
FIGURE 2:
Measuring Economic Returns Via Thresholds

Threshold

0 Minimum Economic Return: A student meets this threshold if they earn at least as much as a high school
graduate plus enough to recoup their total net price plus interest within ten years.

1 Earnings Premium: A student meets this threshold if they reach at least median earnings in their field of study
(or, if field of study data is unavailable, the median earnings for the institution’s predominant degree type).1

2 Earnings Parity: This threshold measures whether students of color, students from low-income backgrounds,
and women reach the median earnings of their systemically more advantaged peers (White students, high-
income students, or men).2

3 Economic Mobility: This threshold measures whether students reach the level of earnings needed to enter the
fourth (60th to 80th percentile) income quintile, regardless of field of study.

4 Economic Security: While sufficient earnings can create a stable life, wealth is key to building the type of
security needed to withstand life’s financial shocks. This threshold therefore measures whether students reach
median levels of wealth.

5 Wealth Parity: Mirroring the earnings parity threshold, this threshold measures whether students of color,
students from low-income backgrounds, and women reach the level of wealth attained by their more privileged
White, high-income, or male peers.

Soure: The Postsecondary Value Framework established a series of economic return thresholds that assist in identifying
economic success gaps once students exit their postsecondary education and enter the workforce. (IHEP & BMGF, 2021,
pg. 40). https://postsecondaryvalue.org/reports/

Threshold 5: Wealth Parity can be viewed as aspirational Data-Sharing Agreements Road Map
due to the complexity of measuring these thresholds. The
Data Item/Action 4: Create holistic data by
University of Texas System initially assisted IHEP in piloting
establishing a data-sharing agreement road map
the framework based on their robust data. Currently,
to pursue data collaborations with state and local
IHEP is working with three states (Arkansas, Indiana, and
agencies, and connect longitudinal data produced by
Kentucky) to implement the framework. Understanding the
public and private companies.
value of a credential and how value differs by race/ethnicity,
gender, and family income level is critical. Please visit Value Proposition: The WSCC model and PVF
the Postsecondary Value Commission website for more provide the framework to explore various types of data
information: (https://postsecondaryvalue.org/) that will help identify why success gaps happen and
how we can resolve them. Based on the IES Survey
Data Strategy: Using the PVF thresholds can quickly
and SHEEO review of current SLDSs data-sharing
identify the success gaps that exist for students of color,
agreements, the following data sources are grouped
women, and students from low-income families. The
into three categories: baseline (standard expectation
first strategy would be to conduct a landscape analysis
for all SLDSs), intermediate (data collaborations
to determine if the SLDS has the appropriate data to
beyond the baseline with different state agencies), and
perform the Threshold analysis. Second, develop a data
aspirational (collaborations beyond state agencies).
analytic strategy on which student cohorts (e.g., year
of entry and completion status) should be included in Baseline: Functional (i.e., data are linked and
the research. Lastly, create a series of dashboards that updated each year) data collaboration with
will assist in describing the success gaps that exist by the areas of early childhood, K-12 teacher,
completion status and program of study. postsecondary, workforce, and Perkins CTE.

USING DATA TO CLOSE SUCCESS GAPS | PAGE 71

 Intermediate: Functional data collaborations make critical data-based decisions? High levels
with other state agencies–Department of Social of data agency will positively impact the ability to
Services, Department of Child Nutrition and use data to identify success gaps and determine
Wellness, School Finance, Department of Health strategies to close them. Do these groups have
and Family Services, Department of Juvenile access to detailed data to determine if programs,
Services, State Department of Labor (e.g., practices, and policies impact success gaps? When
unemployment insurance wage records), and done right, data agency means the data collected
Department of Mental Health and Addiction for SLDSs are actively utilized to drive meaningful
Services. Collaborations with federal agencies change and improvement.
(e.g., U.S. Census Bureau: American Community
Survey, U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer- Data Strategy: Several data agency strategies can
Household Dynamics) that provide private and be used to close success gaps. Specifically, data
publicly available data. agency often begins with simple shortcuts that
facilitate problem-solving, probability judgments,
Aspirational: Functional data collaborations
and storytelling (e.g., visualizations and dashboards).
with public and private companies (e.g., Google,
However, it can quickly progress to more complex
Microsoft, LinkedIn Learning, Coursera, Udemy,
and Udacity) that provide non-credit-bearing algorithms and full-on automation. One strategy is

courses/credentials that are not on students’ to establish interactive dashboards and statistical
transcripts. Data collaborations with public and tools for specific personas (e.g., educational
private companies (e.g., Indeed, Lightcast, and professionals and administrators, policymakers,
Google Careers) that source online job search institutional research professionals, students and
engines or gather a collection of job posting data. parents, teachers/faculty, program directors, career
counselors, academic advisors, and community
Data Strategy: It is essential to create a data road map
members). Each persona will have their own
and strive to capture data on individuals’ cognitive,
experiences using and interpreting data from
health, and behavior, family and community contextual
dashboards. Always keep in mind your audience
factors, and workforce needs. These dynamic data will
when developing internal and external dashboards.
assist in pinpointing areas where policy improvements
You can create the most impressive and creative
are needed to close success gaps in education,
dashboards, but it isn’t beneficial if it does not
postsecondary, and workforce sectors.
resonate with the audience. Once dashboards have
been made, it is helpful to create online training
Data Agency
modules to educate the potential audience on
Data Item/Action 5: Enhance data agency for all how to use the dashboard. Creating one-page data
SLDSs stakeholders. narratives can help facilitate learning new data
and dashboards for stakeholders. Lastly, to close
Value Proposition: Data agency involves the ability
success gaps, it is beneficial to consider developing
to access and create utility (i.e., data literacy) from
data. Expanding on data access, do students and the following types of equitable dashboards using

workers, educational professionals, policymakers, SLDS data: growth measures (identify short- and
and community members depend on others to long-term changes in student learning), student
retrieve data? Do these groups have access to pathways (tracking students during each education
technologies needed to aggregate data, create and workforce transition), and resource equity
reports, and confirm assumptions? Based on utility, (tracking resources and opportunities through K-12
do these groups have the skills to conduct statistical to postsecondary to workforce). Once again, all
analyses and determine where data are statistically dashboards mentioned should be disaggregated by
significant? Do these groups feel empowered to student demographics to identify success gaps.

PAGE 72
CONCLUSION At the state level, states like Indiana, Tennessee, and
Closing success gaps by race/ethnicity, gender, family Texas are making strides toward closing success gaps
income, and other student characteristics will not using SLD data by:
happen without data-informed funding, policy, and
practice. Access to high-quality longitudinal data can 1. Establishing state educational attainment goals
create a barrier preventing positive changes to the disaggregated by student characteristics (e.g.,
K-12, postsecondary, and workforce ecosystems. There race/ethnicity).
are specific examples of states and higher education 2. Producing data dashboards to highlight success
institutions in the United States that are leading the gaps that exist in their states.
way by being intentional in the following ways: 3. Creating an ecosystem of shared responsibility
where states, higher education institutions,
1. Formulating the right questions to ask and answer. and students can all contribute to establishing
2. Embedding strategic goals centered around equity. equitable opportunities for students to complete
3. Measuring and collecting accurate, meaningful, a credential of value that benefits students and
and timely data. employers.
4. Displaying data in informative ways that resonate
with multiple audiences. We all have a part to play in ensuring our long-standing
5. Creating data agency allowing for individuals to compact between individuals and education stays
create action from the data. intact, particularly for students of color, women, and
students from low-income backgrounds to experience
Georgia State University is one of the prime examples economic prosperity and social mobility in our country.
of how a higher education institution was able to close We will not achieve this goal without the use of data
success gaps by race/ethnicity and family economic (e.g., SLDs) to guide us in the right direction.
status. However, it did happen overnight. It took
determination and a commitment from Georgia State
University leadership and staff to ensure that equitable
resources allowed students to thrive, thus closing
success gaps that had existed for decades.

USING DATA TO CLOSE SUCCESS GAPS | PAGE 73

 References
Alliance for Resource Equity. (2022). Education resource Chetty, R., Friedman, J., Saez, E., Turner, N., & Yagan,
equity framework. From Alliance for Resource D. (2017, December). Mobility report cards: The
Equity: https://www.educationresourceequity.org/ role of colleges in intergenerational mobility. From
dimensions Opportunity Insights: https://opportunityinsights.
org/paper/mobilityreportcards/
ASCD, & CDC. (2007). Whole school whole community
whole child: A collborative approach to learning Cleary, J. L., Kerrigan, M. R., & Noy, M. V. (2017). Towards
and health. From CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/ a new understanding of labor market alignment.
healthyschools/wscc/index.htm In M. R. Paulsen, Higher education: Handbook of
theory and research (pp. 577-629). Cham: Springer.
Bensimon, E. M., Rueda, R., Dowd, A. C., & Harris III,
F. (2007). Accountabiliy, equity, and practitioner DQC. (2022, August). Data Systems that Work.
learning and change. Metropolitan Universities, From Data Quality Campaign: https://
28-45. dataqualitycampaign.org/our-work/policy-areas/
data-systems-that-work/
Bensimon, E., & Watson Spiva, Y. (2022, August 24). The
end of “Equity Gaps” in higher education? From Ewell, P., & Boeke, M. (2007). Critical connections:
Diverse: Issues in higher education: https://www. Linking states’ unit record systems to track student
diverseeducation.com/opinion/article/15295980/ progress.
the-end-of-equity-gaps-in-higher-education
Fortelny, G., & Soldner, M. (2021, March 5). Advancing
Braga, B., McKernan, S.-M., Ratcliffe, C., & Baum, S. high-quality data and evidence at the U.S.
(2017). Wealth inequality is a barrier to education Department of Education. From NCEE Blog:
and social mobility. Washington, D.C. : Urban Institute of Education Sciences: https://ies.ed.gov/
Institute. blogs/ncee/post/data-matters-the-blog-of-the-ed-
office-of-the-chief-data-officer-advancing-high-
Busteed, B. (2016, July). Association of Governing quality-data-and-evidence-at-the-u-s-department-
Boards of Universities and Colleges. From AGB: of-education
https://agb.org/trusteeship-article/the-real-data-
revolution/ Gallup. (2019). Education. From Gallup: https://news.
gallup.com/poll/1612/education.aspx
Carnevale, A. (2021, August 2). The future of American
higher education. From Georgetown University Gillaspy, K., Sellers, J., Brown, D., Berry, M., Secamiglio,
Center on Education and the Workforce: https:// S., & Piver-Renna, J. (2022). Equity road map: using
medium.com/georgetown-cew/the-future-of- SLDS data to identify and address equity. U.S.
american-higher-education-e6eb2e522dae Department of Education.

Carnevale, A. P., Fasules, M. L., Quinn, M. C., & Hough Jr, G. C., & Beard, M. M. (2017). State
Campbell, K. P. (2019). Born to win, schooled to longitudinal data systems: Applications to applied
low: Why equally talented students don’t get equal demography. In D. A. Swanson, The frontiers of
chances to be all they can be. Washington, D.C.: applied demography (pp. 209-238). Springer
Georgetown Unversity: Center on Education and International Publishing.
the Workforce.
IHEP, & BMGF. (2021, May). Equitable value: Promoting
Carnevale, A. P., Rose, S. J., & Cheah, B. (2013). The economic mobility and social justice through
college payoff: Education, occupations, lifetime postsecondary education. From Postsecondary
earnings. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Value: https://postsecondaryvalue.org/wp-content/
Center on Education and the Workforce. uploads/2021/07/PVC-Final-Report-FINAL-7.2.pdf

PAGE 74
References
Institute of Education Sciences. (2020). History of the Perez Jr., Z. (2017). Examining SLDS Developent and
SLDS Grant Program: Expanding states’ capacity Utility. Education Commission of the States.
for data-driven decisionmaking. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education. SHEEO. (2020). State postsecondary data: Strong
Foundations Survey. From SHEEO: https://
Jamieson, C., von Zastrow, C., & Perez Jr., Z. (2021, postsecondarydata.sheeo.org/data/
December). 50-State comparison: Statewide
longitudinal data systems. From Education Troutman, D. R., & Creusere, M. (2021). Employment and
Commission of the States: https://www.ecs.org/ earnings inequities: A case study from the University
state-longitudinal-data-systems/ of Texas System. Postsecondary Value Commission.

Klein, C., Whitfield, C., & Weeden, D. (2021, November). U.S. Department of Education. (2020, December). Data
State postsecondary data research partnerships: Strategy. From US: https://www.ed.gov/sites/
Strong foundations 2020. From SHEEO: https:// default/files/cdo/ed-data-strategy.pdf
postsecondarydata.sheeo.org/wp-content/
uploads/2021/11/SHEEO_StrongFoundations_ VLDS. (2021, April). Virginia longitudinal data system
Research.pdf research agenda. From https://vlds.virginia.gov/
media/1094/vlds-research-agenda-technical-
Ma, J., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2016). Education report-final-1.pdf
pays 2016: The benefits of higher education for
individuals and society. Trends in Higher Education
Series. The College Board.

Martin, K. (2012). The outstanding organization:

Generate business results by eliminating chaos and
building the foundation for everyday excellence.
McGraw Hill Professional.

McCann, C., & Laitinen, A. (2014). College blackout:

How the higher education lobby fought to keep
students in the dark. Washington, DC: New
America.

Mills, J. (2005). State data systems and privacy

concerns: Strategies for balancing public interests.
Boston: Jobs for the Future.

NCES . (2021). Profile of State data capacity in 2018:

Statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS) survey
descriptive statistics. Washington, D.C. : U.S.
Department of Education.

O’Hara, N., Munk, T., Reynolds, H., & Collins, T. (2021).

Success gaps handbook: Addressing equity,
inclusion, and opportunity. IDEA Data Center.
Rockville, MD: Westat.

USING DATA TO CLOSE SUCCESS GAPS | PAGE 75

 06 Ensuring Instructional
Quality with Increasing
Reliance on Non-Tenure-
Track Faculty
BY: DI XU

ABSTRACT: Except for Senator Bernie Sanders’ College

for All Act, federal-state partnership proposals have not
addressed minimum standards for educational quality
as a requirement to receive new federal funding. This
paper summarizes the evidence based on the effects that
precarious/contingent and part-time faculty utilization
can have on student outcomes and experiences, as well as
faculty well-being. Recognizing that significant new federal
funding and increased enrollment could further accelerate
use of such faculty, the paper explores the feasibility of
including provisions aimed at preventing that, such as
establishing thresholds for overall utilization of part-time
employment, establishing minimum standards for contract
length for teachers as well as pay and benefits, and other
institutional resources and policies that need to be in place
to ensure educational quality.

PAGE 76
THE GROWING RELIANCE ON NON- The national trends of increasing reliance on non-
TENURE-TRACK FACULTY IN PUBLIC tenure-track faculty are also echoed in multiple state
HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS reports. For example, a 2018 report from the California
State University (CSU) Office of the Chancellor explicitly
In the past few decades, one of the most pronounced
recognized the threat posed by the steady decline in
trends in US higher education has been a steady shift
tenure density at CSU. According to the report, the
away from the tenure system and toward increasing
proportion of faculty on the tenure-track declined
reliance on non-tenure-track faculty working under
from above 70 percent in 1990 to around 55 percent
precarious employment, which is often referred to as a
in 2016. The ratio of students to tenure-track faculty
“contingency movement” (Hearn & Burns, 2021; Kezar,
also declined from 34:1 in 2007 to approximately 40:1,
2013). Analysis of data from the U.S. Department of
implying that students have decreasing access to and
Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
interaction with tenure-track faculty who are responsible
System (IPEDS) in 2016 indicates that around
for shared governance regarding student enrollment,
73 percent of faculty are hired in non-tenure-track
advising, and curriculum development.
positions (AAUP, 2018). In addition, the reliance on
non-tenure-track faculty varies substantially by types of
The heavy reliance on non-tenure-track faculty seems
institutions, where non-tenure-track faculty are more
to be particularly worrisome at two-year institutions.
heavily used at two-year colleges: in 2016, tenure-track
Based on data from an anonymous state, Ran & Xu
positions made up less than 20 percent of faculty
(2019) described the changes in the distributions of
positions at two-year institutions. Due to the financial
different types of instructors at the state’s two-year
constraint and fluctuating enrollment, some community
and four-year institutions over 10 years between 2001
colleges depend on non-tenure-track faculty to function
and 2011 (Figure 2, Xu & Ran, 2019). Their calculation
or even survive (Hearn & Burns, 2021).

TABLE 1:
Report of the Task Force on Tensure Density in the California State University

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
2000

2004

2006

2009
2005
2003

2008
2002

2007
2001

2010
1990

2014

2016
1999

2015
1992

1995

1996

2013
1993

1998

2012
1994

1997
1991

2011

Soure: Table 1 in Report of the Task Force on Tenure Density in the California State University (March, 2018) bit.ly/3wwdLw6

ENSURING INSTRUCTIONAL QUALITY | PAGE 77

 FIGURE 2:
Number of Instructional Staff Employed in the Anonymous State College System
6,000
6,000
1,734
1,511 1,601
1,351 1,734
1,243 1,511 1,601
1,271
4,500 1,351
1,186 1,243
1,271
4,500
868 1,186
1,469 1,431 1,246 1,278
1,270
778 868 1,221
2,090 2,017
1,469 1,431 1,246 1,278
3,000 1,675 1,720
1,885 659
778
1,091
1,221
1,270
2,090 2,017 986
1,680
3,000 1,581
1,675 1,720
1,885 508 659 841 1,091
730 986 740 755
1,680
1,242 1,581 508
661 841 739 789 792 715
675 740 755
1,008 730 618
1,242 661 517 571 739 789 792 715
1,500 859 491
618
675
1,478 1,525 1,448 1,529
1,674 1,667
688 1,008 571 1,385
1,225 1,222 1,219 1,220 517 1,353
1,259
1,500 859
967
1,082 1,133 1,165 491
1,134
1,211
1,478 1,525 1,448 1,529
1,674 1,667
688 851 1,225 1,222 1,219 1,353 1,385
713 1,165 1,220 1,211 1,259
692 1,082 1,133 1,134
967
851
692 713
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
TWO-YEAR FOUR-YEAR
TWO-YEAR FOUR-YEAR

Tenured Tenure-Track Long-Tern Non-Tenure Temporary Adjunct

Tenured Tenure-Track Long-Tern Non-Tenure Temporary Adjunct
Source: Figure 2 in Ran & Xu (2019): Number of Instructional Staff Employed in the Anonymous State College System.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/738207

reveals a shockingly heavy reliance on non-tenure- order to maintain a decent tenure density was depicted
track faculty among two-year institutions in this state, in detail in the 2018 report from the CSU Office of the
where all of the two-year institutions except for one Chancellor. The report explicitly points out that the
exclusively relied on non-tenure-track faculty. At four- funding required to improve tenure density must be
year institutions, the proportion of tenure-track faculty a function of the maintenance funding necessary to
shrank from 58 percent in 2001 to 45 percent in 2011. replace departing tenure-track faculty, plus additional
Moreover, it seems that non-tenure-track faculty hired funding needed to increase tenure density. Their cost
through temporary appointments (i.e., contracts that analysis suggests that in order to increase tenure density
are less than one year; referred to as “temporary by one percent per year at CSU, an additional $100
adjuncts”) instead of long-term employment million in permanent funding would be needed in the
(i.e., more stable employment contracts, which are first year, with ongoing increase in permanent funding
typically renewed every two to three years; referred each year thereafter until the system reaches the desired
to as “long-term non-tenure-track faculty”) increased tenure density. Yet, while the California Legislature
especially fast at both settings. passed ACR 73 in 2001 to launch a plan to increase
tenure density to 75 percent, the plan was never fully
A number of factors have contributed to the decline of realized due to unsuccessful requests of funding.
tenure in higher education. Above all, financial stress
due to state funding decline is an important driving In addition to financial constraints, the declining
force (Kelchen, 2018). As funding for higher education tenure density also reflects the ongoing
becomes more scarce, institutions are constantly decentralization of hiring decisions to departments
under pressure to find ways to reduce expenses. Faced and the need to respond to the rapidly changing
with budget cuts, institutions are less likely to invest in market condition and demand (Kazar & Gehrke,
the long-term security of tenure-track positions and 2014). Critics of the tenure system have argued
increasingly rely on hiring non-tenure-track or part-time that the tenure system can be slow to adapt to
faculty as a cost-saving strategy. The financial need in changing needs and circumstances and may not

PAGE 78
always align with the needs and goals of students and median annual compensation of temporary adjuncts
the market. Finally, the advocacy for moving away from from college teaching positions is around one third as
the tenure structure is further fueled by increased much as that of long-term non-tenure faculty $7,726
specialization of faculty roles and the demand for versus $29,571 at two-year colleges, and $10,944
faculty who prioritize teaching rather than research versus $37,749 at four-year colleges), which seems to
(Bérubé & Ruth, 2015). be due to both lower teaching load and lower pay per
credit. Temporary adjuncts are also more likely to be
HETEROGENEOUS CONTRACTUAL hired through part-time employment and are subject
ARRANGEMENTS AND WORKING to higher attrition rates, where the one-year turnover

CONDITIONS FOR NON-TENURE- rate is three times higher than non-tenure-track faculty
hired in longer-term employment. These working
TRACK APPOINTMENTS
conditions impose greater challenges for temporary
In response to the growing number of non-tenure-
adjuncts in maintaining instructional quality, mirroring
track faculty in higher education institutions, a number
concerns that have been cited in literature about
of studies have used college administrative data and
temporary labor hired in other industries (for example,
rigorous causal inference methods to examine how the
Lewis 1998; McNerney 1995).
shift to contingency may influence student academic
outcomes (e.g., Bettinger and Long 2010; Carrell
and West 2010; Chen, Hansen, & Lowe, 2021; Figlio,
Temporary adjuncts are
Schapiro, and Soter, 2015; Hoffmann and Oreopoulos,
2009; Xu, 2019; Xu & Ran, 2019; Xu & Solanki, 2020; also more likely to be
Zhu, 2021), and the results are mixed. One challenge hired through part-time
to reach any consensus regarding the academic effects
of the shift to contingency lies in the vast variations
employment and are
in the specific contractual arrangements and working subject to higher attrition
conditions among faculty hired into non-tenure- rates, where the one-
track positions both within and across institutions. At
community colleges, for example, AAUP’s analysis of the
year turnover rate is
federal data indicates that the length of the contact for three times higher than
full-time non-tenure-track faculty ranges widely between non-tenure-track faculty
less than year to multiyear or indefinite contracts (AAUP,
2018).1 In addition to contract length, many non-tenure-
hired in longer-term
track positions are on a part-time basis. For example, employment.
using state college administrative data, (Xu & Ran, 2019)
reported that non-tenure-track faculty could be hired
through either part-time or full-time employment, NON-TENURE-TRACK FACULTY
despite the length of the contract, although part-time AND STUDENT OUTCOMES
employment was much more prevalent among those The declining number of tenure-track faculty in higher
hired through temporary contracts.2 education has attracted criticism from the public.
Research consistently suggests that the commitment
Contractual differences can result in drastic variations and engagement of instructors with their institution
in both working conditions and compensation for non- and students is important for the education process
tenure-track faculty. According to (Xu & Ran, 2019), the (Day, 2004; Elliott & Crosswell, 2001; Fried, 1995; Nias,

1
Specifically, the report indicates that the majority of the full-time non-tenure-track faculty at community colleges are on annual contracts (63 percent); 28 percent have multiyear or
indefinite contracts, and 8 percent have temporary contracts lasting less than a year (AAUP, 2018).
2
The proportions of non-tenure-track faculty hired through part-time employment were 69 percent at two-year institutions and 53 percent at four-year institutions respectively. Part-time
employment is much more prevalent among temporary adjuncts (78% at two-year institutions and 70% at four-year colleges) than long-term non-tenure-track faculty (36% at two-year
institutions and 31% at four-year colleges).

ENSURING INSTRUCTIONAL QUALITY | PAGE 79

 1996). The increasing reliance on non-tenure-track Oreopoulos, 2009; Xu & Ran, 2019; Xu, 2019; Zhu,
faculty has been criticized for causing problems such 2021). However, one methodological challenge to
as insufficient engagement with the department, lack of delivering a causal estimate is self-selection. That is,
experience and professional training, limited availability college students select courses and professors based
to students, inadequate preparation time for courses, on individual preferences, which makes it difficult to
and the possibility of teaching at multiple institutions separate the causal effects of instruction quality from
(Benjamin, 2002, 2003; Schuetz, 2002; Umbach, the aptitudes and attitudes of students. The current
2007). In addition, studies conducted at two-year literature of quasi-experimental designs has mainly
institutions indicate that many non-tenure-track faculty, employed two identification strategies to address
especially those hired through part-time appointment student self-selection: student fixed effects models that
often receive particularly low compensation, minimal control for biases that are fixed at the student level
benefits, and lack job security (Adamowicz, 2007; (e.g., Figlio et al., 2015), and an instrumental variable
Friedlander, 1980; Jacoby, 2005; Schmidt, 2008), strategy that takes advantages of the exogenous
who are found to hold “scant loyalty for the institution fluctuations in faculty composition in a department
and an increasing sense of frustration with their (e.g., Bettinger & Long, 2010).
circumstances” (Brewster, 2000, p. 68). These issues
may negatively impact the quality of instruction and the
interactions between faculty and students. Moreover, Studies generally found
tenure-track faculty are essential for shared governance
that students tend to
of an institution. In addition to research and teaching,
they are also responsible for student enrollment, receive higher grades when
curriculum and program development, professional taking the same course
development, administrative duties, serving on search
committees and planning groups, and participating in
with a non-tenure-track
campus life. These roles are important for the overall faculty, and the effect size
functioning and success of the university, as well as for is particularly pronounced
student engagement and learning.
among temporary adjuncts.
A number of studies empirically assessed the RAN & XU, 2019; XU, 2019; CHEN ET AL., 2021
relationship between reliance on non-tenure-track
faculty and student outcomes by exploiting institution-
Given the substantial heterogeneity in contractual
level variations in use of non-tenure-track faculty.
arrangements for non-tenure-track positions, it is not
These studies generally identified negative associations
surprising that the findings from this line of work vary
between higher shares of non-tenure-track faculty and
depending on which specific type of non-tenure-track
average college graduation rates (e.g., Eagan & Jaeger,
faculty is examined and the institutional environment.
2009; Ehrenberg & Zhang, 2005; Jaeger & Eagan, 2009;
The results also vary depending on the specific
Jacoby, 2006). Yet, these estimates might be subject
outcome metrics examined, which are summarized
to unobserved institution-level differences that are
briefly below.
associated with an institution’s reliance on non-tenure-
track faculty as well as its average graduation rates.
Concurrent course persistence and performance.
A line of more recent research used college Studies generally found that students tend to receive
administrative data to explore whether students higher grades when taking the same course with a non-
learn differently when taking a specific course with tenure-track faculty, and the effect size is particularly
different types of faculty (e.g., Bettinger & Long, 2010; pronounced among temporary adjuncts (Xu & Ran,
Carrell & West, 2010; Figlio et al., 2015; Hoffmann & 2019; Xu, 2019; Chen et al., 2021). For example, Chen

PAGE 80
et al. (2021) compared student grades between part- university. Compared with tenure-track faculty, taking
time and full-time faculty at a mid-sized, four-year one’s initial course in a subject area with a non-
public university and identified a 0.2–0.3 grade-point tenure-track faculty had positive impacts on student
increase in the average GPA when students took the subsequent interest (measured by enrolling in another
same course with a part-time instructor. On a 0–4 course in the same subject area) and performance in
grading scale, a 0.3 grade-point increase is similar the subsequent course. Another set of studies (e.g.,
to one letter grade higher, such as from B+ to A-. Bettinger and Long, 2010; Hoffmann & Oreopoulos,
Interestingly, their subsequent analysis indicated that 2009; Xu & Solanki, 2020) were conducted at selective
when instructors’ contractual status changed from public institutions, and generally identified small and
part time to full time, grades assigned by the instructor often nonsignificant differences in students’ dropout,
would be deflated, suggesting that the higher grades subsequent grade, and course-selection outcomes
observed among part-time instructors are likely to between tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty.
be due to grading leniency instead of better student
learning outcomes, thus raising concerns about using In contrast, studies conducted in open-access two-
course grade or student evaluations as the sole criteria year or less selective public four-year institutions
to assess instructional quality. generally identified a negative association between non-
tenure-track faculty and student subsequent course
Subsequent course enrollment and performance. enrollment and performance (e.g., Ran & Sanders,
In view of the potential bias introduced by focusing on 2020; Xu & Ran, 2019; Xu, 2019). It is worth noting that
concurrent course grades, researchers looked beyond these studies showed a much heavier use of temporary
current course outcomes and incorporated subsequent part-time appointments for non-tenure-track positions,
course enrollment and performance to understand especially at two-year institutions, resulting in strong
the impact of non-tenure-track on students’ interest exposure to part-time temporary adjuncts among
in a field and preparation for subsequent learning. Yet, students. In the state examined by (Xu & Ran, 2019),
studies conducted in different types of institutions 75 percent of all faculty in two-year colleges and 39
often result in contradictory conclusions. The strongest percent in four-year colleges were temporary adjuncts
support for the optimism around non-tenure-track hired through contracts shorter than one year. With
faculty comes from a study conducted by Figlio et al. non-tenure-track faculty hired through longer-term
(2015) at Northwestern University, a well-resourced contracts as the reference group, temporary adjuncts
private institution where the majority of non-tenure- had a negative impact on students’ probability of
track faculty had a longer-term relationship with the enrolling and completing the next course in the same

ENSURING INSTRUCTIONAL QUALITY | PAGE 81

 field of study by approximately 2 percentage points, contracts among non-tenure-track faculty, (Xu &
while tenure-track/tenured faculty had a positive Ran, 2021), related the proportion of course credits
impact by 1 percentage point. In other words, while taken with different types of instructors during a
both types of non-tenure-track faculty were associated student’s initial semester in college to a variety of
with less desirable subsequent outcomes, students academic outcomes. They found that a 10-percentage-
were subject to greater levels of negative influence point increase in the level of first-term exposure
when taking courses with temporary adjuncts. to temporary adjuncts adversely affects two-year
college students’ first-year persistence rates by 2
percentage points and total number of college-level
75% of all faculty in two- credits attempted and earned subsequently by one
year colleges and 39% credit. Moreover, the penalty of temporary adjuncts
is particularly strong among males and racial minority
in four-year colleges students with above-median math scores prior to
were temporary adjuncts college enrollment. Male students who perform

hired through contracts above average incur a 5-percentage point increase

in their first-year college withdrawal rate due to a
shorter than one year. 10-percentage point increase in exposure to temporary
adjunct faculty during their first term. Considering
XU & RAN, 2019
that optimizing college retention is imperative when
it comes to economic opportunity for disadvantaged
College persistence and credit accumulation.
students, the negative impact of temporary adjuncts
In view of the negative impact of non-tenure-track
on two-year students’ college persistence and credit
faculty, especially temporary adjuncts on students’
accumulation is especially worrisome.
subsequent interest and performance, some
researchers raised the concern that uninspiring Labor market performance.
experiences in a course might hamper a student’s One argument for hiring non-tenure-track faculty
subsequent persistence in college. Using data from is that some of them may have industry-related
public four-year colleges in Ohio, Bettinger and Long working experiences and thus may bring networking
(2006) found that students taking an “adjunct-heavy” and internship opportunities to students, as well as
course schedule in their first semester are less likely imparting valuable practical skills and knowledge (e.g.,
to persist into their second year. Using data that Cantor, 1997; Leslie & Gappa, 1995). By linking college
differentiates between temporary and long-term administrative data with unemployment insurance

PAGE 82
earnings records, (Xu & Ran, 2021) examined this challenging to recruit and retain highly skilled adjunct
possibility empirically and identified a small and instructors who are willing to be employed through
nonsignificant association between non-tenure-track temporary and precarious appointments (Xu & Ran,
faculty and student labor market outcomes. 2022). Indeed, drawing on a survey of chief academic
officers at 347 community colleges nationwide,
STUDENTS’ DIFFERENTIAL EXPOSURE Charlier & Williams (2011) found that STEM-related
TO TEMPORARY ADJUNCTS fields reported highest unmet demand for adjunct
faculty members. They also found that adjuncts were
In view of the particularly pronounced negative impact
less heavily used in colleges located in rural areas than
of temporary adjuncts on student outcomes, it is
those in suburban or urban areas while rural leaders
important to understand what types of students are
indicated higher level of unmet demand for adjunct
most heavily exposed to them? Given the heavier
faculty members, again suggesting that the limited
reliance on temporary adjuncts at community colleges,
employment pool in rural areas and in STEM fields
it is not surprising that community colleges students
could make it especially difficult to recruit and retain
have substantially higher levels of exposure to adjuncts
highly skilled adjunct instructors. This possibility was
with temporary appointments than four-year students.
supported by empirical evidence from Xu (2019) and
In the state examined by (Xu & Ran, 2021), for example,
(Xu & Ran, 2022), who identified a particularly large
two-year college students on average take 40% of their
negative impact of temporary adjuncts in STEM-related
first-semester course credits with adjunct faculty hired
fields compared with non-STEM fields.
through temporary appointments, where four out of
five temporary adjuncts are hired through part-time
Finally, current research has also identified differences
employment. In contrast, four-year college students
between subgroups of the student population in their
on average only take 18% of their first-semester course
exposure to temporary adjuncts at a college. For
credits with temporary adjunct faculty.
example, the results from (Xu & Ran, 2021) indicate that
at community colleges, racial minority students, older
Within a specific institution, prior research also reveals
students, state residents, students with lower high school
noticeable variations between different departments
GPAs, non-STEM majors, and part-time enrollees are
in use of temporary adjuncts. In the same study
more likely to have a heavier adjunct schedule. The heavy
conducted by (Xu & Ran, 2021), the researchers found
exposure to temporary adjuncts among male and racial
that in two-year colleges, non-STEM fields rely more
minority students is particularly worrisome, given that
heavily on temporary adjuncts than do STEM fields,
Ran & Xu’s subsequent analysis suggest that the penalty
where temporary adjuncts are most actively involved in
of greater exposure to temporary adjuncts is particularly
teaching humanities. At four-year colleges, temporary
larger among males and racial minority students.
adjuncts are most involved in teaching English courses
and least involved in teaching science courses. Yet, it is
WHAT EXPLAINS STUDENT
important to note that the lower reliance on temporary
adjunct faculty in STEM fields may be a consequence
PERFORMANCE GAPS ASSOCIATED
of limited employment pools of qualified candidates, WITH NON-TENURE-TRACK FACULTY
rather than a deliberate institutional or departmental In view of the variations in teaching effectiveness of
strategy. Considering that college graduates majoring different types of faculty, it is important to understand
in STEM-related fields typically earn higher wages sources of such variation. A handful of studies
than college graduates in non-STEM fields (Kinsler & compared different types of faculty in terms of their
Pavan, 2015), individuals with a STEM credential would instructional approaches and interactions with students
face a high-opportunity cost of choosing to teach as a (e.g., Benjamin, 2002, 2003; Schuetz, 2002; Umbach,
temporary adjunct faculty. Accordingly, in STEM and 2007). These studies were primarily conducted at two-
health-related fields with higher average compensation year institutions and all raised concerns that reliance
and higher returns to investment, it would be particularly on part-time faculty may undermine successful student

ENSURING INSTRUCTIONAL QUALITY | PAGE 83

 integration and compromise learning outcomes. For challenging working conditions for non-tenure-track
example, Benjamin (2002, 2003) found that part-time faculty adjunct instructors hired in temporary part-time
faculty were less accessible to students outside of positions, including lack of office space, inadequate
the classroom, and that exams were less rigorous and orientation, limited professional training opportunities
required less writing from students. Based on surveys and mentoring, insufficient information on available
of more than 1,500 faculty respondents from over student academic and non-academic support services,
100 community colleges nationwide, Schuetz (2002) and insufficient time to prepare for the course (e.g.,
found that part-timers tend to ‘‘use less innovative or Eagan et al., 2015; Hoyt, 2012; Kezar, 2013; Kezar &
collaborative teaching methods, and interact less with Sam, 2013; Ran & Sanders, 2020; Schuster & Finkelstein,
their students, peers, and institutions’’; they also tend 2007). For example, based on faculty survey data
to ‘‘express less knowledge of students’ need for or use collected from six community colleges, Ran & Sanders
of support services’’ (p. 44), suggesting that students (2020) found that compared with full-time faculty, part-
are unlikely to receive the same quality of instruction time faculty reported having significantly less knowledge
from part-time faculty in community colleges. about academic and non-academic supports and
services available to students, which could hamper their
In view of the differences between faculty in capacity to advise and support students.
instructional approaches and interactions with
students, a number of mechanisms have been
discussed, which can be broadly put into one of two Non-tenure-track faculty,
categories. The first category focused on faculty’s especially temporary
individual and professional characteristics, such as
highest degree attained, years of teaching experiences,
adjuncts, are more likely
and professional experiences in other industries. to be assigned to teaching
A number of studies found noticeable differences classes with certain
between non-tenure-track faculty and tenure-track
faculty, as well as between temporary adjuncts and
characteristics, including
long-term non-tenure faculty. For example, Ran & entry-level courses, classes
Xu (2019) found that compared with tenure-track or with smaller enrollment
tenured faculty, non-tenure faculty are more likely to
be female and less likely to have received a master’s
size, online sections, and
or doctorate. Between the two types of non-tenure- night or weekend classes.
track faculty, temporary adjuncts had particularly low
RAN & SANDERS, 2020; RAN & XU, 2019
proportions of faculty with terminal degrees. These
professional characteristics may be related to an
instructor’s content knowledge, which in turn, may In addition, research also indicates that non-tenure-
influence student learning outcomes. track faculty, especially temporary adjuncts, are more
likely to be assigned to teaching classes with certain
The other category of mechanisms instead focused characteristics, including entry-level courses, classes
on faculty’s working conditions, such as types of with smaller enrollment size, online sections, and
sections assigned to non-tenure-track faculty, access night or weekend classes (Ran & Sanders, 2020; Ran
to institutional resources, and part-time employment & Xu, 2019). Some of these attributes may influence
status, which may affect faculty’s knowledge of an instructor’s capacity to engage their students.
the institution, capacity to engage students and, For example, if an instructor primarily or exclusively
consequently, impact student academic outcomes. teaches outside of regular business hours, it may
Indeed, a large volume of studies have consistently negatively influence their ability to access campus
provided qualitative or descriptive evidence about the resources, and engage with either the students or the

PAGE 84
institution. Similarly, if an instructor only teaches entry- mediators of the associations between part-time faculty
level courses and has limited involvement in more and student outcomes.
advanced course work and curriculum design, it may
limit their capacity in broadening introductory course Third, among the individual and professional
content to prepare students for subsequent learning. characteristics examined, having a master’s or doctoral
Finally, an extensive body of research has converged to degree was found to be a significant predictor of
the consensus that online learning is associated with instructional effectiveness at four-year institutions (Ran
unique challenges that require substantial amounts of & Xu, 2019). As for employment conditions, part-time
efforts and pedagogical knowledge from the instructor status tends to be a strong negative predictor of an
to intentionally address these challenges (see Xu & Xu, instructor’s teaching effectiveness at both two-year
2019 for a review of this line of literature). Accordingly, and four-year institutions, providing strong empirical
insufficient professional development opportunities and support for the concerns around the capacity of part-
limited time to prepare for a course may exacerbate time faculty in engaging students effectively (e.g., Ran
the challenges non-tenure-track faculty are facing when & Sanders, 2020; Ran & Xu, 2019; Xu, 2019).
they teach online classes.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
While a number of mechanisms have been discussed
Recommendations for state and federal policy.
in the qualitative and theoretical literature that may
State and federal policymakers should be cognizant
contribute to differential teaching effectiveness between
that as colleges increasingly move away from a
faculty hired through different contracts, only a handful
tenure system and toward relying on non-tenure-
of studies directly assessed the exploratory power of
track, part-time, and temporary appointments, there
these factors empirically (e.g., Ran & Sanders, 2020;
is a risk of compromised student performance and
Xu & Ran, 2019). Overall, three patterns emerge from
exacerbated equity gaps across the higher education
these studies. First, adding observable instructor
system. Here are a few steps policymakers could take
individual and employment characteristics helps explain
to ameliorate these gaps:
substantial amounts of the estimated differences
between different types of faculty on student academic • Set a target for tenure density and establish
outcomes. For example, (Xu & Ran, 2019) examined a stable approach to the budget
four vectors of instructor characteristics, including (i) to achieve the goal:

an instructor’s highest educational credential received, When institutions are faced with meeting the
(ii) whether the instructor taught in multiple institutions, legitimate needs with declining budgets, there is
(iii) part-time versus full-time employment status, and an almost inevitable move toward hiring non-
(iv) industry experience. The authors found that adding tenure-track faculty to save costs. This dynamic
these predictors explains away one quarter of the gaps is unlikely to change unless a clear target for
between temporary adjuncts and long-term non-tenure tenure density is set and is explicitly included
instructors on subsequent enrollment at two-year into the budget and faculty hiring process. The
institutions, and more than half in four-year institutions. ideal tenure density may vary across institutions
depending on multiple factors, such as the
Second, between the two categories of factors, working missions of the institution, characteristics of the
conditions instead of individual characteristics seem student population, enrollment size, and the
to be the primary explanatory source of variation in number of lower-division service courses, among
faculty effectiveness. For example, based on data from others. Yet, providing guidance to help institutions
six community colleges, Ran & Sanders (2021) found set a clear target of the ideal tenure density,
that contextual and institutional factors surrounding funding budget requests to achieve the target,
part-time employment, rather than part-time faculty and establishing a process for monitoring and
members’ individual traits, are more likely to be the reporting systems on an annual basis is necessary

ENSURING INSTRUCTIONAL QUALITY | PAGE 85

 to change the current trend toward overreliance used to be collected in the National Study of
on non-tenure-track faculty. Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF), which was
discontinued in 2013. Resuming collection of
• Implement policies to limit the use more detailed data about faculty and linking them
of part-time adjunct contracts: to student data systems will allow for long-term
In view of the negative impacts of part-time monitoring of faculty usage and its impact on
temporary contracts on faculty’s working instruction and student outcomes.
conditions, experiences, and student outcomes,
it is important for federal policymakers to • Establish guidance on best practices about
recognize the risk associated with part-time accountability and support for faculty:
temporary appointments and implement The current literature converges to suggesting
policies to limit the use of temporary part-time that instructional effectiveness highly depends on
contracts for instructional faculty. Yet, from a working conditions and institutional environment.
cost perspective, the costs are likely to be higher Yet, the precise institutional practices and policies
if institutions rely more heavily on long-term that have substantial impacts on instructional
contracts than temporary ones. Based on Xu & effectiveness is largely unknown. Accordingly,
Ran’s (2021) calculation, the average pay per credit policymakers should identify systematic ways to
is 12% to 22% lower for temporary adjuncts than collect and share evidence-based strategies and
long-term, non-tenure faculty, and this calculation institutional practices for accountability mechanisms
does not take into account the additional gaps and support for both tenure-track and non-tenure-
in benefits provided to faculty. Accordingly, track faculty across a variety of institutional contexts
policymakers should ensure that federal funding is with different levels of resources and distinct types
provided to institutions to enable them to reduce of student population served.
the reliance on temporary positions and shift
toward a more stable teaching force. Recommendations for institutional policy:

• Set an institution-specific tenure density plan

• Provide funding to support faculty and create a multi-year faculty hiring plan that
recruitment in rural areas and STEM fields: addresses the target and fits within existing
In view of the greater challenges of recruiting resource allocations:
and keeping high-quality non-tenure-track In developing the plan, it is critical for institutions to
faculty in rural areas and in STEM-related fields, lobby the legislature and governor for sufficient state
policymakers should consider providing additional funding to meet the institution’s faculty hiring plan.
funding specifically allocated to rural institutions
and STEM-related fields to help them create • Reduce use of temporary contracts
long-term teaching positions with better working and part-time employment:
conditions and competitive compensation to In view of the contrasts between non-tenure-track
recruit capable candidates. faculty hired through temporary and long-term
contracts, colleges may consider limiting the
• Strengthen federal data collection: number of temporary positions, especially those
The federal data currently collect information with part-time contracts, and instead creating
about percentage of different types of faculty more long-term, full-time positions with greater
at the institution level. This could be further security and institutional support to stabilize
strengthened and expanded to collect more and professionalize the teaching force. One
detailed information about faculty, such as way to make this shift is to develop long-term
information about discipline-specific reliance contract arrangements with instructors who are
on non-tenure-track faculty. Such information initially hired through temporary contracts but

PAGE 86
 demonstrate strong commitment to teaching. weekdays when many part-time adjuncts are
In addition to serving as a stable teaching not available. This requires institutions to not
force, teaching faculty hired through long-term only allocate funding to provide professional
contracts may also bring other benefits to development opportunities to all faculty and
an institution. For example, Bush et al. (2015) offer compensation or financial incentives for
describe the potential of teaching faculty to serve participation, but also offer those opportunities
as pedagogical leaders and agents of change at a variety of times (such as offering some
within their respective departments. programs over the weekend) and through
different delivery formats (such as creating
• Ensure access to resources hybrid and online programs) to expand access
and institutional engagement: to these opportunities.
Differential access to institutional resources
and diminished engagement with the institution • Caution against using student course
may hinder faculty’s ability to engage and evaluations or course grades alone for
support students. To address these challenges, evaluating instructional effectiveness.
it requires colleges to ensure that all instructors, Institutions commonly use student course
regardless of employment status, have ample evaluations and course completion rates to
opportunities to provide input on program evaluate instructional effectiveness. While
goals, curriculum design, and student services. these measures provide valuable information
It is also desirable for institutions to connect and are convenient to collect, they are often
faculty teaching similar courses and create space subject to potential biases due to grading
for faculty to work together to discuss best leniency and do not fully capture a student’s
practices and create a community of support. learning gains. Accordingly, institutions need
In addition, Kazar (2013) also pointed out a to caution against using student course
number of concrete institutional practices that evaluations or student course grades as the
do not require the infusion of money to enact sole criterion for evaluating instructional
and thus can be put into place even in resource effectiveness, and consider incorporating more
constrained environments, such as collecting direct measures of instructional practices
sample syllabi, providing basic materials, early through class observations conducted by
scheduling, consolidating teaching schedules, peers or pedagogical experts. Institutions
communicating institutional resources and may also consider including additional items
policies more proactively, and administering into student course evaluation that focus on
anonymous surveys among non-tenure-track instructional practices that are promising
faculty to elicit policies and practices that may at engaging students and facilitate learning,
influence their productivity. such as availability and frequency of office
hours, interaction with course instructors,
• Provide professional training opportunities. opportunities for interacting peers, clarity of
One important way for colleges and course objectives, etc.
departments to engage faculty and improve
their teaching is through professional
development. However, non-tenure-track
faculty, especially those hired through
temporary appointments often have limited
access to these opportunities and even if
they do, campus workshops or programs are
often offered during regular working hours on

ENSURING INSTRUCTIONAL QUALITY | PAGE 87

 References
American Association of University Professors (2018). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher
Data Snapshot: Contingent Faculty in US Higher Ed. Education.
Retrieved on September 5th, 2022 from: https://
www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/10112018%20 Carrell, S. E., & West, J. E. (2010). Does professor quality
Data%20Snapshot%20Tenure.pdf matter? Evidence from random assignment of
students to professors. Journal of Political Economy,
Benjamin, E. (2002). How over-reliance on contingent 118(3).
appointments diminishes faculty involvement in
student learning. Peer Review, 5(1). Charlier, H. D., & Williams, M. R. (2011). The reliance
on and demand for adjunct faculty members in
Benjamin, E. (2003). Editor’s notes and reappraisal and America’s rural, suburban, and urban community
implications for policy and research. In E. Benjamin colleges. Community College Review, 39(2), 160-180.
(Ed.), Exploring the role of contingent instructional
staff in undergraduate learning (pp. 1–14 and 79–113). Chen, K., Hansen, Z., & Lowe, S. (2021). Why do we inflate
New Directions for Higher Education (No. 123), San grades? The effect of adjunct faculty employment
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. on instructor grading standards. Journal of Human
Resources, 56(3), 878921.
Berube, m., & Ruth, J. (2015). The humanities, higher
education, and academic freedom: Three necessary Eagan, K. M., Jr., & Jaeger, A. J. (2009). Effects of
arguments. New York, NY: Palgrave macmillan. exposure to part-time faculty on community college
transfer. Research in Higher Education, 50, 168–188.
Bettinger, E. P., & Long, B. T. (2006). The increasing use
of adjunct instructors at public institutions: Are we Ehrenberg, R. G., & Zhang, L. (2004). The changing nature
hurting students? In R. G. Ehrenbert (Ed.), What’s of faculty employment. Cornell Higher Education
happening to public higher education? Westport, CT: Research Institute, Working Paper No. 44. New York,
Praeger. NY: Cornell Higher Education Research Institute.
Available at www.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri.
Bettinger, E. P., & Long, B. T. (2010). Does cheaper mean
better? The impact of using adjunct instructors on Figlio, D. N., Schapiro, M. O., & Soter, K. B. (2015). Are
student outcomes. The Review of Economics and tenure track professors better teachers? Review of
Statistics, 92, 598–613. Economics and Statistics, 97, 715–724.

Bush, S. D., Pelaez, N. J., Rudd, J. A., Stevens, M. T., Hearn, J. C., & Burns, R. (2021). Contingent faculty
Tanner, K. D., & Williams, K. S. (2015). Misalignments: employment and financial stress in public universities.
Challenges in cultivating science faculty with The Journal of Higher Education, 92(3), 331-362.
education specialties in your department. Bioscience,
65, 81–89. Hoffmann, F., & Oreopoulos, P. (2009). Professor qualities
and student achievement. The Review of Economics
California State University Office of the Chancellor (2018). and Statistics, 91(1), 83–92.
Report of the Task Force on Tenure Density in the
California State University. Retrieved on December Hoyt, J. (2012). Predicting the satisfaction and loyalty of
15, 2022 from: https://academics.fresnostate. adjunct faculty. The Journal of Continuing Higher
edu/senate/documents/Report%20of%20 Education, 60(3), 132–142.
the%20Task%20Force%20on%20Tenure%20
Density%20in%20the%20California%20State%20 Jaeger, A. J., & Eagan, K. M., Jr. (2009). Unintended
University_2018_Statewide%20Senate.pdf consequences: Examining the effect of part-time
faculty members on associate’s degree completion.
Cantor, J. A. (1997). Experiential learning in higher Community College Review, 36, 167–194.
education: Linking classroom and community.

PAGE 88
References
Jacoby, D. (2006). Effects of part-time faculty employment Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2007). On the
on community college graduation rates. Journal of brink: Assessing the status of the American faculty
Higher Education, 77, 1081–1103. (Research and Occasional Paper Series CSHE.3.07).
Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of
Kelchen, R. (2018). Higher education accountability. Johns California, Berkeley.
Hopkins University Press.
Umbach, P. D. (2007). How effective are they? Exploring
Kezar, A. J. (2013). How colleges change: Understanding, the impact of contingent faculty on undergraduate
leading, and enacting change. Routledge. Kezar, A. J., education. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2),
& Sam, C. (2010). Understanding the new majority: 91- 123.
Contingent faculty in higher education [Vol. I, ASHE
Higher Education Report Series]. Jossey-Bass. Xu, D. (2019). Academic performance in community
colleges: The influences of part-time and fulltime
Kezar, A., & Gehrke, S. (2014). Why are we hiring so many instructors. American Educational Research Journal,
non-tenure-track faculty? Liberal Education, 100(1). 562(2), 368–406.

Kezar, A. J., & Sam, C. (2013). Institutionalizing equitable Xu, D., & Ran, F. (2021). The impacts of different types of
policies and practices for contingent faculty. The college instructors on students’ academic and labor
Journal of Higher Education, 84(1), 56–87. market outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 40 (1), 225-257.
Kinsler, J., & Pavan, R. (2015). The specificity of general
human capital: Evidence from college major choice. Xu, D. & Ran, F. (2022). The disciplinary differences in
Journal of Labor Economics, 44(4), 933972. the characteristics and effects of non-tenure-track
Faculty. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
Leslie, D. W., & Gappa, J. M. (1995). The part-time 44(1), 50-78.
faculty advantage. In Metropolitan universities: An
international forum (Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 91–102). Xu, D., & Solanki, S. (2020). Tenure-track appointment
for teaching-oriented faculty? The impact of
Lewis, G.B. 1998. “Part-Time Employment in the Federal teaching and research faculty on student outcomes.
Service Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs?” The Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(1),
American Review of Public Administration 28(1):61–74. 66-86.

McNerney, D.J. 1995. “Are Contingent Workers Really Xu, D., & Xu, Y. (2019). The promises and limits of online
Cheaper?” HRFocus 72(9):1, 4–6. higher education: Understanding how distance
education affect access, cost, and quality. In AEI
Ran, F. X., & Sanders, J. (2020). Instruction quality or Paper & Studies. American Enterprise Institute.
working condition? The effects of parttime faculty on
student academic outcomes in community college Zhu, M. (2021). Limited contracts, limited quality?
introductory courses. AERA Open, 6(1). effects of adjunct instructors on student outcomes.
Economics of Education Review, 85.
Ran, F. X., & Xu, D. (2019). Does contractual form matter?
The impact of different types of non-tenure-track
faculty on college students’ academic outcomes.
Journal of Human Resources, 54(4), 1081–1120.

Schuetz, P. (2002). Instructional practices of part-time

and full-time faculty. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 2002, 39–46.

ENSURING INSTRUCTIONAL QUALITY | PAGE 89

 07 The Research Mission
and College Affordability:
Context and Policy
Recommendations
BY: BRENDAN CANTWELL

Research universities are a vital part of the education

sector in the United States.1 In 2021, 41% of all full-time
equivalent (FTE) enrollments were at research universities.
The research sub-sector extends well beyond the most
elite and well-known universities to include a wide swath
of higher education institutions, including many that
offer broad access and support lower-income and BIPOC
students (Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher
Education [CCIHE], 2021). Research universities offer the
resource-intensive education that brings about successful
student outcomes.

PAGE 90
Increased per-student expenditure is causally increasingly spend their own funds to support
associated with higher graduation rates (Deming research. The need for additional research funding
& Wolter, 2017). In recent years, demand for and encourages institutions to seek students who
enrollment in doctoral universities increased and can pay higher tuition prices (Jaquette, et al.,
graduation rates have ticked up (Carrsco, 2022). 2016). The importance of addressing research
Between 2018 and 2021, research universities were the is compounded when considering proposals
only institution type that grew in both the number of for new federal-state funding partnerships. The
institutions in the category and in total enrollments federal government is the dominant force in
by category. While the U.S. higher education sector is shaping science policy, while the provision of
shrinking overall, the research university sub-sector is higher education is typically understood to be the
growing (CCIHE, 2021). Research universities also offer primary responsibility of the states. To the extent
more opportunities to study in remunerative majors that these levels of government work together
like such as engineering and offer students a higher to support affordable and inclusive access, they
probability of graduating, which are two key factors should approach the problem holistically to
for the return on investment from college (Webber, reduce the chance of working in opposition of
2016). They offer students an array of experiences, one another. In re-thinking the way that higher
including the opportunity to participate in research, education is financed, policymakers can consider
that are beneficial to improving educational and social how the research mission and the goal of providing
outcomes (Mayhew, et al., 2016). Beyond individual inclusive access intersect and to craft policy that
returns, research universities are community anchors. recognizes that intersection and aims to preserve
They employ large numbers of people (sometimes the research mission and its contributions to the
are the largest employer in a state), contribute to common good while containing students’ exposure

community economic resilience (Weinstein, & Yang, to the cost of research and generally improving

2021), and stimulate regional economic vitality as well equity in higher education.

as national innovation (Owen-Smith, 2019).

In this paper, I consider why the research mission is
an important, if often overlooked, piece of the puzzle
Research universities offer to securing broad-based, equitable, and affordable

the resource-intensive access to higher education. I show how the research

mission has expanded over time and show how
education that brings some of the costs of research are passed on to
about successful student students. Finally, I offer some possible approaches to
outcomes. Increased per- addressing the question of research in federal-state

student expenditure is partnerships designed to lower college costs.

causally associated with WHY DO COLLEGE ACCESS AND

higher graduation rates. AFFORDABILITY POLICY REFORMS
DEMING & WOLTER, 2017
NEED TO GRAPPLE WITH THE
RESEARCH MISSION?
The benefits of academic research come with costs, Successful policy design and implementation
some of which are borne by students. State and of policy to improve equity and affordability on
federal research funding is flat, and competition for higher education will require accurately assessing
available funds is intense. As a result, universities the extent and intensity of university research and

1
I define research universities as CCHE’s R1: Doctoral Universities – Very high research activity, R2: Doctoral Universities – High research activity, and D/PU: Doctoral/Professional Universities
categories. Institutions in each of these categories have a substantial graduate education and knowledge creation mission and contribute to country’s academic research enterprise.

CONTEXT AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS | PAGE 91

 TABLE 1:
Public University Research Expenditures by Source, Millions $

SOURCE MEDIAN MEAN S.D.

Total 28.0 159.6 289.8

Federal 14.1 81.2 156.7

State and Local 1.6 11.1 24.4

Institutional 8.6 44.3 78.9

Nonprofit 0.9 9.3 25.6

Industry 0.6 8.6 20.6

Other 0.2 5.1 16.2

Source: All institutional research and development expenditures search and development expenditure data from the National
Science Foundation’s (NSF) Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) survey. Data available from:
https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvyherd/#tabs-2.

securing buy-in from key stakeholders, including the enroll 26% of all undergraduate students. Research
institutions that perform research, major funding universities encompass multiple missions that are
agencies, and science policy advocates. The federal 2
sometimes in tension with each other (Winston, 1999;
government is the primary funding of academic Weisbrod, 2000). In addition to a primary mission of
research but significant intersectional dollars providing undergraduate education, a large portion
supplement the federal investment, which exposes of the U.S. higher education sector is dedicated
students to research costs. Research universities are to the creation and dissemination of knowledge
often thought of as small segment of the U.S. higher through research. Because education and research
education landscape. Indeed, the super-elite, globally are produced jointly (Leslie et al., 2012), the research
renown universities with outsized research operations mission undoubtably influences undergraduate
and vast reserves of institutional wealth do comprise education, including contributing to student access and
a tiny fraction of campuses and enrollments (Taylor & increasing institutional thrust for net tuition revenue.
Cantwell, 2019). But framing all research universities
as synonymous with the wealthiest and most selective Higher education is the second largest research and
institutions in the country is misleading. Public regional development (R&D) sector in the country, and the
universities such as the University of Texas, El Paso and largest performer of basic research (Burke et al.,
California State University at Los Angeles are research 2022). The federal government is the largest funder of
universities. In fact, there are 469 research universities academic research, but institutions supplement federal
in the United States in 2021 (CCHE, 2021). Research and other funding sources with their own dollars to
universities make up just 6% of all institutions but support research. In 2020, public institutions reported

2
Within research active universities, presidents, provosts, research vice presidents, graduate school leaders, and the deans of research-intensive colleges will be key stakeholders to engage.
The National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, and Department of Education are all major funders of academic research
whose policy shape university behavior. Large non-governmental foundations such as the Gates Foundation, Lumina Foundation, and the Bloomberg Family Foundation are also active in
research funding and may be active in this policy area. Science advocacy groups such as the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities (APLU), American Association of Universities
(AAU), American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the National Academies of Science and Engineering also important stakeholder groups to engage.

PAGE 92
spending $56.1 billion on R&D to the National Science research portfolio. Half of all research active public
Foundation, including $15.5 billion from institutional universities dedicated $8.6 million or more in
coffers.3 Table 1 reports median, average (mean), and institutional funds on research, and the average
standard deviation statistics on research expenditures university spent $44.3 million institutional dollars
by funding source at U.S. public universities. Half of the on research. To put these numbers in context,
345 public universities included in the NSF’s Higher research and public service currently comprises
16% of total expenditures (derived from all sources)

Dozens of public at public four year institutions (NCES, 2022).

research universities Since the 1970s, the research mission has grown
spent more institutional in intensity at the most research-active universities

than federal money on and a wider swath of institutions have adopted a

research in 2020. research mission. The increased scope and intensity

of scientific research, along with the expanded
HAMILTON & NEILSON, 2021 set of institutions that have adopted a research
mission, mean that research costs grow every year.
Education Research and Development (HERD) survey In recent years, growth in research spending by
report conducted $28 million or more in research in colleges has been primarily financed by institutions
2020, and the average institution had a $159.6 million using their own resources to keep pace with rising

FIGURE 1:
Total Academic R&D Expenditures from HERD Survey, 1972–2020

45,000,000
45,000,000

40,000,000
40,000,000

35,000,000
35,000,000

30,000,000
30,000,000

25,000,000
25,000,000

20,000,000
20,000,000

15,000,000
15,000,000

10,000,000
10,000,000

5,000,000
5,000,000

0
0
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
STATE AND LOCAL FEDERAL INSTITUTIONAL
STATE AND LOCAL FEDERAL INSTITUTIONAL

Source: Author calculations of Higher Education Research and Development survey Data.

3
All institutional research and development expenditures search and development expenditure data from the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Higher Education Research and Development
(HERD) survey. Data available from: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvyherd/#tabs-2.

CONTEXT AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS | PAGE 93

 FIGURE 2:
Percent Change in E&D Expenditures from the HERD Survey, 1972–2020

1580%

1380%

1180%

980%

780%

580%

380%

180%

-20%
2000

2004

2006

2009
2005
2003

2008
2002

2020
2007
2001

2010
1990
1980

2014
1984

2016

2019
1999

2015
1992
1986

2018
1985

1995
1996

2013
1988
1989

1993

1998
1983

2012
1982

1994
1979

2017
1975

1997
1973

1978
1972

1987
1976
1977
1974

1991

2011
1981

STATE AND LOCAL CHANGE FEDERAL CHANGE INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE

Note: Author’s calculations of Higher Education Research and Development survey Data.

outlays. Institutional expenditures cover indirect starting in the mid-2000s. State and local funding
costs not recovered through sponsored research, grew slowly over the period to less than $5 billion
fund faculty and laboratory start-up costs, as well as annually by 2020. Institutional funding rose steadily,
seed and bridging funding that is intended to develop reaching nearly half of the federal total by 2020.
external funding (Stephan, 2012). A growing portion Figure 2 shows cumulative year-over-year percentage
of research costs are passed on to students in the change in expenditures by the three major sources.
form of higher tuition fees and higher student to Institutional funding grew at a much faster rate
faculty ratios (Ehrenberg, Rizzo, & Jakubson, 2005). than any other source did. The sharp increase in
While universities do use endowment and gift funds
institutional funding (measured in year-over-year
to support research, state appropriations and student
change in constant dollar aggregated expenditures) is
tuition fees are used to support research and graduate
indicative of the growing number of institutions that
education at public universities (Leslie et al., 2012;
spend on research and increased per-institutional
Taylor & Cantwell, 2015).
expenditures. While the rate of increased research
Research spending accelerated starting in the mid- spending from federal and state sources leveled after
1990s. As Figure 1 indicates, federal funding followed 2010, the rate of growth from institutional sources
an upward trend rising from approximately $7 billion shows no sign of abating. The increased cost of
to over $40 billion in constant dollars between 1972 academic research is increasingly borne by institutions
and 2020, but federal spending became more volatile that pass a portion of that cost on to students.

PAGE 94
WHY ARE INSTITUTIONS SPENDING SO and prestige seeking – push universities to do more
MUCH MORE MONEY ON RESEARCH research and, consequently, spend more of their
own money on it.
TODAY THAN IN THE PAST?
In 2020, institutional expenditures accounted for Since the Second World War, federal policy has
26.7% or greater at half of all research active public generally encouraged further development of the
universities, and the average public university derived research mission in higher education. During the
28.5% of its research expenditures from institutional Cold War, basic university research was enlisted
sources (see Table 2). Institutional funds were the by the federal government to help secure Western
second largest source of research expenditures. technological and economic advantage (Teitelbaum,
Although federal research funds typically exceed 2014), from the 1980s through the 2000s, university
institutional funds, that is not always the case. HERD research was seen by policymakers and business
data show that dozens of public research universities leaders as a key ingredient to national innovation
spent more institutional than federal money on and competitiveness in an open global economy
research in 2020. Many of those institutions are (Slaughter, 1990; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004), and
“new universities” (Hamilton & Neilson, 2021), or more recently higher education has been enlisted
more recently established research universities, by the federal government to support the U.S. in
and it is notable that they serve a larger share of its competition with China for global influence and
lower-income and BIPOC students than their more power (Lee, 2021).
established flagship-type peers do. Beyond the
“cost disease” problem (Archibald & Fledman, 2011; Unlike the situation in many countries where
Baumol & Bowen, 1966) when labor and capital costs universities get direct or performance-based funding
outpace productivity and efficiency gains, at least for research, U.S. universities generally do not
three forces – policy pressure, direct competition, receive direct research funding. Instead, research

TABLE 2:
Share of Public University Research Expenditures by Source

SOURCE MEDIAN MEAN S.D.

Federal 48.6% 50.7% 20.1%

State and Local 5.4% 10.2% 12.6%

Institutional 26.7% 28.5% 17.8%

Nonprofit 3.1% 4.7% 5.4%

Industry 2.3% 4.1% 6.4%

Other 0.5% 1.9% 3.2%

Note: Author’s calculations of Higher Education Research and Development Data, 2022; n = 345

CONTEXT AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS | PAGE 95

 is primarily funded through competitively awarded a status boundary an organization sits. For example,
grants. Market-like competition among researchers institutions understood to be research universities
and universities may be a mechanism that drives may be viewed as more prestigious than institutions
American research eminence (Urquiola, 2020), but that focus exclusively on education. Therefore, we see
it is unlikely that competition controls costs. The universities celebrate when they move “up” the in the
NIH budget was doubled over a period of a few Carnegie classification. Competition to be included in
years between the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush more prestigious categories leads the highest-status
administrations. The infusion of funds available to win universities to enforce boundary divisions by setting
through grant competition led universities to expand the brass ring higher and higher (Brankovic, 2018). This
their research ambitions, investigators to submit more cycle of striving for ever harder-to-reach markers of
and more applications for funding, and generally lead status – for example, the trend to set a goal of reaching
to more direct competition between universities and $1 billion in research spending4 – keeps the pressure
investigators. At the same time, with flagging state on and further encourages the practice of devoting
appropriations, universities were widely encouraged institutional resources to the research enterprise.
to diversify their sources of funding, and research was
often identified as a potential source of new revenue EXCLUSION AS A SOCIAL COST
(Zemsky, et al., 2005). OF THE RESEARCH MISSION.
Research universities are too exclusionary. On
Between 1999 and 2006, NIH grant success rates average, research universities are more selective than
declined from around 55% to around 20% even as other institutional types, but most public research
the total amount of money available was much greater universities, even most of those seen as flagships,
(Zerhuni, 2006). Universities, primed to grow the are not especially selective (Cantwell & Byrd, 2021).
research mission, face a more crowded field and more Rather than being selective, public research universities
intense competition for research grants. As Figure 2 tend to be exclusionary. Research universities
shows, institutional expenses grew faster than federal do systematically underrepresent students from
spending before and after the NIH doubling. Inequality low-income backgrounds and students who hold
between top-performing research universities and marginalized racial identities (Jaquette, 2017). For years,
lower-status research performers is widening over advocacy organizations and researchers have observed
time (Taylor, 2016). The difference between university this pattern and have called on public research
research output is attributable to university capacity universities to be more inclusive and representative of
to support large numbers of non-faculty research staff the populations they proposedly serve (e.g., Haycock
such as postdocs and research scientists (Zhang, et. & Gerald, 2006). Research universities cost more
al., 2022), creating further incentive to direct university to run than other institutional types, and they often
resources to expense categories that have very little to charge higher tuition to students. As public research
do with undergraduate education. universities need more unrestricted revenue for their
research operations, it is plausible that they are more
Higher education is a fundamentally social enterprise. likely to seek and enroll students that are most able
Universities are understood in relation to each other to pay at or near the published tuition price. Indeed,
(Marginson, 2006). The phenomenon of striving, or higher education researchers have found evidence that
institutions that seek to attain a higher status, is well public universities do seek students with the greatest
documented in higher education (O’Meara, 2007). capacity to pay at the expense of providing inclusive
Institutional prestige depends in part on which side of access to lower-income students (Salazar, et. al., 2021).

4
Several public universities have set a goal of reaching $1billion in research expenditures. Examples include The University of Arizona (https://tucson.com/news/local/university-of-arizona-
sets-1-billion-research-expenditure-goal/article_c89e853a-4893-11ec-8e52-63ba36e0bae5.html) and the University of Utah (https://research.utah.edu/researchers-corner/posts/2022/
September/research-funding-fy22-sept-13-2022.php) among others.

PAGE 96
 FIGURE 3:
Relationship between Institutional Research Expenditures and the Share of Students
Who Recived a Pell Grant

50
50

45 45

40
PERCENT PELL

40
PERCENT PELL

35
35

30
30

25

25 0 5 10 15

0 LOG
5 OF INSTITUTIONAL R&D
10 15
95% CI FITTED VALUES
LOG OF INSTITUTIONAL R&D
95% CI FITTED VALUES

Note: Author calculations of Higher Education Research and Development and Integrated Postsecondary System
survey data; N = 421

Despite persistent calls for greater inclusion, a between the share of Pell Grant recipient students
negative relationship between the share of students and logged total and institutionally derived research
who received a Pell Grant and research expenditures expenditures when controlling for total enrollment,
persists. Analyzing the relationship between research meaning that the relationship was not simply
expenditures and the share of undergraduate explained by institutional size. A 1 percent increase
students who received a Pell Grant in a sample of in institutionally derived research expenditure was
421 public research universities in 2020, and using associated with a 1.35% decrease in the share of
data from IPEDS and HERD, I find a moderate undergraduate Pell Grant recipients. This relationship
negative correlation coefficient (–0.303) for logged was significant at the 95% confidence interval. Figure
institutionally sourced research expenditures and 3 shows the fitted linear relationship between the
the percent of undergraduates who received a Pell percent of students who received a Pell Grant and
Grant. In other words, an increase in institutional logged institutional expenditures. The downward slope
research spending was associated with a decrease illustrates the negative association between how much
in the share of undergraduates who received a Pell public research universities spend on research from
Grant. The negative relationship holds in a simple their own coffers and the share of undergraduate
linear regression model that estimates the relationship Pell Grant recipients.

CONTEXT AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS | PAGE 97

 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS allow policymakers to monitor what activities are, and
Discussions about how to reform higher education are not, included in research expenditures and to
policy should consider ways to account for the understand how institutionally derived expenditures
research mission. In this section, I sketch three initial are financed. Having this information would make
ideas to get the conversation going. The ideas I present transparent the financial exposure tuition payers and
become increasingly more ambitious. states have to the research mission. This information
could be used to engage in a productive conversation
Idea 1: Better Data Reporting: about setting standards or in a more formal
Policymakers would benefit from better comparable accountability mechanism.
data on institutional expenditures. The IPEDS finance
surveys collect information on research expenditures Idea 2: Provide Direct Support for Research
and requires institutions to report on research grants through Title III of the HEA:
and total research expenditures5 but does not require Title III of the Higher Education Act (HEA) provides
clear reconciliation to show how non-sponsored direct federal support for higher education institutions
research is financed. The HERD survey also asks and is used to support a variety of programs, including
about research revenue and expenditure and asks funding targeted to Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs).
more detailed questions about how topline figures Congress could amend Title III to directly support
are constructed, but again does not allow for a clear the research mission for MSIs and institutions that
way to understand how institutional expenditures are enroll a large proportion of students who receive the
financed.6 More clearly defining expense categories Pell Grant. The aim of this grant funding would be to
and plain accounting about how institutional research support the research mission at eligible institutions
expenses are financed would improve utility of these and relieve their need to use tuition and fee revenue,
data for policymakers. Improving available data could state appropriations or other general operating funds

IPEDS finance survey: https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/public/survey-materials/instructions?instructionid=30067. See parts E and D.

5

HERD survey: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvyherd/surveys/srvyherd-2022.pdf

6

PAGE 98
for supporting research activity. Because institutions do CONCLUSION
not always seek and use Title III grants in ways that are The research mission is a vital component to U.S.
consistent with program intent (Aguilar-Smith, 2021), a higher education. While selective private universities
new program designed to support the research mission and flagship-type public institutions are major
should include guardrails to ensure that funds are used research performers, many MSI and broad-access
as intended. institutions are also research universities. Their
research activities make valuable contributions to
Idea 3: A Federal–State Partnership to Control
the regional and national economies and provide
Research Expenditures & Protect Instructional Funds:
important opportunities for students. Flat federal
A more ambitious policy option would be to develop and state research funding coupled with intensifying
a program that directly funds research and contains competition for available funds leads institutions to
commitments to limit the use of tuition fees and supplement sponsored research funds with university
general appropriations for research to address the issue dollars. This growing appetite for research funding may
of institutional cross-subsidies for research. This option lead universities to seek out students who are able to
is most likely to be appropriate when included as part pay higher tuition prices. Ongoing policy conversations
of a broader federal-state partnership to reform how about how higher education is financed should
higher education is financed specifically to improve incorporate the research mission. Simply curtailing
college access and affordability. As a basic concept, the research mission would be counterproductive
such a program could work in the following way: the because the benefits accrued from research are
federal government and states would provide direct substantial. Policies seeking to contain students’
research funding to institutions with the condition that financial exposure to the cost of research are worth
they limit or eliminate existing general fund research considering. Better data that provide a clearer picture
spending. Additional accountability measures could about how universities finance research is a first step to
include a requirement to redirect replaced research the nuanced policy conversations that are necessary to
funds to instruction or student supports, requirements both reflect where research spending is now, and drive
to maintain or expand enrollment of lower-income and improvements in the future.
BIPOC identified students, and/or requirements to
reduce tuition prices, or limit increases, in recognition
of additional direct funding for research.

The details of such a plan would matter a great

deal. Federal-state cooperation would likely include
a state opt-in provision and maintenance of effort
requirements. Determining the relative contribution of
the states versus the federal government will require
careful consideration, especially given variation in state
funding. Encouraging states to enter such a partnership
will likely require the federal government providing
net additional funding to the states but should also
hold states accountable for reinvestment in higher
education. Improved data collection is likely a
pre-requisite to design and implement a federal–state
research cost-sharing policy.

CONTEXT AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS | PAGE 99

 References
Aguilar-Smith, S. (2021). Seeking to serve or $erve? Gerald, D., & Haycock, K. (2006). Engines of inequality:
Hispanic-Serving Institutions’ race-evasive Diminishing equity in the nation’s premier public
pursuit of racialized funding. AERA Open, 7, universities. Education Trust.
23328584211057097.
Hamilton, L. T., & Nielsen, K. (2021). Broke: The racial
Archibald, R., & Feldman, D. (2011). Why does college cost consequences of underfunding public universities.
so much? Oxford: Oxford University Press. University of Chicago Press.

Baumol, W., & Bowen, W. (1966). Performing arts—The Weinstein, R., & Yang, Y. (2021). Do Universities Improve
conomic dilemma: A study of problems common Local Economic Resilience? The Review of
to theater, opera, music, and dance. New York: Economics and Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1162/
Twentieth Century Fund. rest_a_01212

Brankovic, J. (2018). The status games they play: unpacking Jaquette, O. (2017). State universities no more. Jack Kent
the dynamics of organisational status competition in Cook Foundation.
higher education. Higher Education, 75(4), 695-709.
Jaquette, O., Curs, B. R., & Posselt, J. R. (2016). Tuition
Burke, A., Okrent, A., Hale, K., & Gough, N. (2022). The rich, mission poor: Nonresident enrollment growth
State of US Science & Engineering 2022. National and the socioeconomic and racial composition of
Science Board Science & Engineering Indicators. public research universities. The Journal of Higher
NSB-2022-1. National Science Foundation. Education, 87(5), 635-673.

Cantwell, B. & Byrd, C. (April 28, 2021). The ‘Flagship’ Folly. Lee, J.J. (Ed.). (2021). US power in international higher
The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retreated from: education. Rutgers University Press.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-flagship-folly.
Leslie, L. L., Slaughter, S., Taylor, B. J., & Zhang, L. (2012).
Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education How do revenue variations affect expenditures
(CCIHE) (2021) 2021 Update – Facts & Figures. within US research universities? Research in Higher
Retrieved From: https://carnegieclassifications. Education, 53(6), 614-639.
acenet.edu/downloads/CCIHE2021-FactsFigures.pdf.
Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global
Carrsco, M. (February, 2022). College completion rates competition in higher education. Higher Education,
on the rise. Inside Higher Education. Retrived From: 52(1), 1-39.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/02/03/
college-completion-rate-rises-nationally-after-last-year Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. N., Bowman, N. A., Seifert,
T. A., & Wolniak, G. C. (2016). How college affects
Deming, D. J., & Walters, C. R. (2017). The impact of students: 21st century evidence that higher education
price caps and spending cuts on US postsecondary works (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons.
attainment (No. w23736). National Bureau of
Economic Research. National Center for Education Statistics. (2022).
Postsecondary Institution Expenses. Condition of
Ehrenberg, R.G., Rizzo, M.J., & Jakubson, G.H. (2005). Who Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute
bears the growing cost of science at the university? of Education Sciences. Retrieved from https://nces.
R.G. Ehrenberg, P.E. Stephan (Eds.), Science and the ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cue.
University, University of Wisconsin Press.
Meara, K. O. (2007). Striving for what? Exploring the
Fischer, K. (July 26, 2022). American’s Confidence in Higher pursuit of prestige. In Higher education: Handbook
Education Drops Sharply. The Chronicle of Higher of theory and research (pp. 121-179). Springer,
Education. Retreated from: https://www.chronicle.com/ Dordrecht.
article/americans-confidence-in-higher-ed-drops-sharply.

PAGE 100
References
Salazar, K. G., Jaquette, O., & Han, C. (2021). Coming Winston, G. C. (1999). Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: The
soon to a neighborhood near you? Off-campus awkward economics of higher education. Journal of
recruiting by public research universities. American economic perspectives, 13(1), 13-36.
Educational Research Journal, 58(6), 1270-1314.
Zemsky, R., Wegner, G. R., & Massy, W. F. (2005). Today’s
Slaughter, S. (1990). The higher learning and high colleges must be market smart and mission centered.
technology: Dynamics of higher education policy Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(45), B6.
formation. SUNY Press.
Zerhouni, E. A. (2006). NIH in the post-doubling era:
Slaughter, S., Slaughter, S. A., & Rhoades, G. (2004). realities and strategies. Science, 314(5802), 1088-
Academic capitalism and the new economy: 1090.
Markets, state, and higher education. Johns Hopkins
University Press. Zhang, S., Wapman, K. H., Larremore, D. B., & Clauset,
A. (2022). Labor advantages drive the greater
Stephan, P. (2012). How economics shapes science. productivity of faculty at elite universities. Science
Harvard University Press. Advances, 8(46): DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abq7056

Taylor, B. J. (2016). The field dynamics of stratification

among US research universities: The expansion of
federal support for academic research, 2000–2008.
In Higher education, stratification, and workforce
development (pp. 59-79). Springer, Cham.

Taylor, B. J., & Cantwell, B. (2015). Global competition,

US research universities, and international doctoral
education: Growth and consolidation of an
organizational field. Research in Higher Education,
56(5), 411-441.

Taylor, B. J., & Cantwell, B. (2019). Unequal higher

education: Wealth, status, and student opportunity.
Rutgers University Press.

Teitelbaum, M. S. (2014). Falling Behind? Princeton

University Press.

Urquiola, M. (2020). Markets, Minds, and Money. In

Markets, Minds, and Money. Harvard University Press.

Webber, D. A. (2016). Are college costs worth it?

How ability, major, and debt affect the returns to
schooling. Economics of Education Review, 53,
296-310.

Weisbrod, B. A. (Ed.). (2000). To profit or not to profit:

The commercial transformation of the nonprofit
sector. Cambridge University Press.

CONTEXT AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS | PAGE 101

 Author Biographies
Dr. Brendan Cantwell
Dr. Brendan Cantwell is an associate professor and coordinator of the Higher, Adult, and
Lifelong Education (HALE) program at Michigan State University. He is also joint editor-in-chief
of the international peer-reviewed journal Higher Education. Brendan’s research interest is
in the political economy of higher education, and he addresses topics including organization
and governance, policy, and academic labor. Much of his work takes an international and
comparative perspective. He is co-author of Unequal Higher Education (Rutgers University
Press) and co-editor of Assessing the Contributions of Higher Education (Edward Elgar) and
High Participation Systems of Higher Education (Oxford University Press).

Dr. Jennifer A. Delaney

Dr. Jennifer A. Delaney is an associate professor and director of the Higher Education Program
in the Department of Education Policy, Organization, and Leadership at the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign. She is also the director of the Forum on the Future of Public Education
at the University of Illinois. In addition, Dr. Delaney is a member of the Illinois Board of Higher
Education. Her scholarly research focuses on higher education policy, with an emphasis on
finance. She has published extensively in the areas of student financial aid, state budgeting for
higher education, and on related topics of higher education policy. Delaney earned a PhD in
higher education administration from Stanford University, an EdM in higher education from
Harvard University, and a BA in English from the University of Michigan.

Dr. William R. Doyle

Dr. William R. Doyle is a professor of higher education in the Department of Leadership,
Policy, and Organizations at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Doyle serves as editor-
in-chief of research in higher education. His research includes evaluating the impact of
higher education policy, the antecedents and outcomes of higher education policy at the
state level, and the study of political behavior as it affects higher education. Prior to joining
the faculty at Vanderbilt, he was senior policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy
and Higher Education. Doyle received a master’s degree in political science and a PhD in
higher education afrom Stanford University in 2004. Doyle’s recent work has explored the link
between geographic opportunity for higher education and its impact on both earnings and
civic outcomes. His recent policy-related work has examined the status of college affordability
in every sector of higher education in all 50 states.

Dr. Kelly Rosinger

Dr. Kelly Rosinger is an associate professor of education and public policy at Penn State. Her
research examines the barriers students face going to and through college and how postsecondary
policies can be designed to promote racial and economic equity. Kelly Rosinger has published
research in Educational Researcher, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, AERA Open,
Education Finance and Policy, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Review of Higher
Education, The Journal of Higher Education, and Research in Higher Education, among others.
Her work has been highlighted by The New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, Chronicle of
Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, and Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, among others. She
earned a PhD in higher education and a master’s degree in public administration, both from the
University of Georgia, and a bachelor’s degree in public relations from the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. She previously worked as an assistant director of undergraduate admissions
at the University of Georgia.

PAGE 102
Dr. Vanessa A. Sansone
Dr. Vanessa A. Sansone is an assistant professor of higher education in the Department of
Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA).
Her areas of research interest focus on the influence of college affordability, Hispanic-Serving
Institutions, and power structures and governance on the trajectories, experiences, and
opportunities of historically underrepresented students. She holds a doctorate in educational
leadership with an emphasis in higher education from UTSA, a master of education degree in
higher education and administration from UTSA, and a bachelor of arts degree in sociology
from St. Mary’s University, San Antonio.

Dr. David R. Troutman

Dr. David R. Troutman is the deputy commissioner for Academic Affairs at the Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board. He plays a critical role in advancing the goals of Building
a Talent Strong Texas and the Governor’s Tri-Agency Workforce Initiative. Troutman has
extensive experience in Texas higher education, having most recently served as the chief data
officer and associate vice chancellor for Institutional Research and Analysis at The University
of Texas System. In this role, he led a team of research and policy analysts to transform
data into timely and meaningful information in support of UT system initiatives and policy
decisions across its 13 institutions. He collaborates with federal and state agencies such as
the U.S. Census Bureau, Texas Workforce Commission, and nonprofit foundations such as
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Lumina Foundation, and Strada Education Network.
Troutman holds a PhD and master’s degree in human development and family studies from
the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and a bachelor’s degree in psychology from
Oklahoma State University.

Dr. Di Xu
Dr. Di Xu is an associate professor of education policy at the University of California, Irvine,
where she serves as the faculty director of the campus-wide Postsecondary Education Research
and Implementation Institute and the co-director of the school-based Online Learning
Research Center. Her research examines the impacts of educational programs and institutional
policies on college students’ academic and labor market outcomes, with a particular focus
on community colleges and on students from low-income and historically underrepresented
groups. Her recent projects focus on designing and implementing interventions to test
strategies that are promising to improve student engagement and performance both overall
and in online courses. More specifically, she’s exploring how instructors hired through different
employment contracts are associated with student outcomes; and investigating the enrollment,
completion, and subsequent educational and labor market outcomes among students enrolled
in non-credit workforce training programs, as well as malleable factors within the control of
programs or institutions that may influence these outcomes. Xu earned a PhD in economics
and education from Teachers College, Columbia University.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES | PAGE 103

 Peer Reviewers
We are appreciative to our peer reviewers for ensuring that these papers are high quality and policy relevant.

Stephanie Aguilar-Smith Amy Li Eloy Ortiz Oakley

Assistant Professor of Counseling and Assistant Professor of Educational Policy President and CEO,
Higher Education, University of North Texas Studies, Florida International University College Futures Foundation

Sondra N. Barringer Demarée Michelau Alyssa Picard

Assistant Professor of Higher Education, President, Western Interstate Director of Higher Education,
Southern Methodist University Commission for Higher Education American Federation of Teachers

Nikki Edgecombe Michelle Miller-Adams Karina G. Salazar

Senior Research Scholar at Community Senior Researcher, Upjohn Institute Assistant Professor of Higher Education,
College Research Center and Research The University of Arizona
Professor at Education Policy and Barmak Nassirian
Social Analysis Department at Teachers Vice President of Higher Education Abigail Wozniak
College, Columbia University Policy, Veterans Education Success Vice President and Director of
Opportunity and Inclusive Growth
Tom Harnisch Rebecca S. Natow Institute, Federal Reserve Bank
Vice President of Government Relations, Assistant Professor of Educational of Minneapolis
State Higher Education Executive Leadership and Policy,
Officers Association Hofstra University

Brandy Johnson
President, Michigan Community
College Association

Patrick Lane
Vice President of Policy Analysis
and Research, Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education

www.ticas.org | 202.223.6060
1615 L Street, N.W. Suite 310
PAGE 104 Washington, DC, 20036