Council for Opportunity in Education Annual Conference New York, NY September 8, 2006

1. Council for Opportunity in EducationAnnual ConferenceNew York, NYSeptember 8, 2006 College Affordability and Low-Income Students Kimberly R. Rogers Assistant Professor, Higher Education krrogers@buffalo.edu

2. Understanding of the problem • Research focuses specifically on low-income students attending community colleges & other two-year institutions • Due to financial and academic limitations, low-income students are attending 2- and less than 2-yr institutions in greater numbers (Martinez, 2004) • Social justice issues • Workforce issues • Approximately half of all students attend a community college or less than 2-yr institution at some point; most common point of access for students with financial and/or academic limitations (Brint & Karabel, 1989) • Many low-income students at community colleges may also be classified as non-traditional age students, also known as “adult learners”

3. Research Questions & Data • How does receiving financial aid affect the certificate and associate degree attainment of low-income students? • Data: • Beginning Postsecondary Students 96/01; NCES • Low-income: 185% of federal poverty level • 3,013 students in Fall 1995 • Attainment information only for 1,955 of 3,013 students • 47% attained some degree; 13% still enrolled; 40% missing • Adult learner: a student who is at least 24 years of age • 45% of all low-income students are also adult learners!

4. Demographics of low-income students • Racial/ethnic background • Caucasian: 52% • African American: 21% • Hispanic: 19% • Asian/Pacific Islander: 6% • Native American: 1% • Gender • Male: 38%; • Female: 62% • Dependency status • Dependent: 33% • Independent with no dependents: 19% • Independent with dependents: 48%

5. Low-income Students & College Destination • Traditional-age students • Community colleges (48%) and for profit 2 and <2-yr institutions (25%) • Only 23% of low-income students started in public or private four-year colleges • Adult learners • 59% in community colleges, 21% in for-profit 2 or <2-yr institution, compared to 13% in the 4-year sector

6. Educational Outcomes for Low-Income Adult Learners • Among the adult-learner freshmen entering college in the fall of 1995: • 26.3% completed certificates (n=306) • 10.1% completed associate degrees (n=94) • 5.0% completed bachelor’s degrees (n=128) • 9.4% still enrolled after five years (n=97) • 49.2% with no degree and not enrolled (n=442)

7. Low-Income Adults and Financial Aid • Financial aid awarded during 1995-96 • Federal Aid • Pell grant: 32% (N=578) • SEOG: 9% (N=139) • Stafford: 21% (N=491) • Perkins: 1% (N=25) • State Aid • Loan: <0.1% (N=1) • Merit-based grant: 0.2% (N=5) • Need-based grant: 9% (N=156) • Institutional Aid • Loan: 2% (N=35) • Merit-based grant: <1% (N=13) • Need-based grant: 8% (N=108)

8. Key Findings for Low-Income Adults • Few financial aid-related variables linked to attainment • Pell 1997-98: +81% • Pell 2000-01: -13% • Institutional need-based: -24% • Stafford 1999-2000: +94% • Perkins 1997-98: +97% • Perkins 1998-99: -2% • Non-financial aid variables worth noting • Being female: -9% • College GPA: >3.0: +91% • Race was significant before introduction of financial aid

9. Conclusions • Timing of financial aid receipt is as important as the form of aid received • First institution attended plays a significant factor in attainment • Receipt of financial aid appeared to mitigate the negative effects of race/ethnicity on attainment • Low-income students and adult learners at community colleges often do not have the cultural and/or social capital, i.e., the access to knowledge, people, and networks which facilitate college-going aspirations, behaviors , or timely access to financial aid information (Coleman, 1988; Valadez, 1993).

10. Federal Policy Receiving aid early in college had a positive effect. Frontload Pell for students in certificate/AA programs Gender: most poor students were female Welfare reform; intergenerational inequity Need for policy inclusiveness New policies not meant to serve adult learners (e.g., Academic Competitiveness grants) State Policy Popularity of state-based merit aid programs since the early to mid 1990s Programs have a positive impact on low-income students, but very few receive this aid (about 1%) Equity and efficiency be better served by increasing need-based aid Implications for Policy

11. Institutional Implications • Institutional Practice • Share info early & often: 43% of low-income students did not receive a Pell grant in 1995-96, despite very low family income. • Information flow: Many low-income adults do not realize that students loans are financial aid. • Technology: Access? Comfort? Reluctance to use it? • Identification of students who qualify for the new SMART grants • Better training for staff

12. For further information, please contact: Kimberly R. Rogers Assistant Professor, Higher Education Graduate School of Education 481 Baldy Hall University at Buffalo Buffalo, NY 14260-1000 716-645-2471 x1107 krrogers@buffalo.edu