Search News


Browse Archives

News

Many Community Colleges Opt Out of Loan Program

April 17, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

About a quarter of America’s community colleges don’t participate in the federal student loan program, leaving more than a million -- or about 10 percent -- of community college students without access to the lower- and fixed-interest loans, according to a report released today by the Project on Student Debt. Students at these colleges, the report argues, must resort to riskier forms of debt.

The non-participating colleges, which tend to be smaller, more rural, and serve larger proportions of minority and low-income students than the average two-year college, have opted not to participate primarily because of concerns that large proportions of students might default on the loans, endangering the institutions' eligibility for federal financial aid for all students. Many college officials also express a desire to shield students at low-tuition institutions from the burden of debt.

"Many of these colleges have the students who have the hardest time getting credit currently, and the federal loan program was built to make sure that people without credit history, from lower-income communities, have access to loans," said Robert Shireman, executive director of the Project on Student Debt. “These are the cases where [students] may have some of the greatest need for loans but the leadership at the college at some point in past years decided that it was too hazardous for the students or too hazardous for the school. We think now is the time to reconsider that decision because the other options that these students have are worse."

“The danger in discouraging students by denying them the opportunity to take out federal loans is that the schools are under the illusion that the students are not borrowing when in fact they’re carrying credit card balances or going to the payday loan companies, because they need money to pay bus fare,” said Shireman.

The report, "Denied: Community College Students Lack Access to Affordable Loans," finds that the states with the highest proportions of community college students without access to federal loans are Georgia (60 percent), Alabama (51 percent), North Carolina and Louisiana (both 47 percent), Montana (27 percent), Virginia (24 percent), Tennessee (22 percent) and Utah (20 percent). Tribal colleges, by and large, do not participate in the federal loan program. African-American and Native American community college students are twice as likely not to have access to the federal loan program as white students. Nationally, 20 percent of black students and 19 percent of Native Americans attend community colleges that don’t participate in the federal loan program, compared with 9 percent of white students, 11 percent of Latino students and 5 percent of Asian-Americans. (A complete list of institutions by participation status is available here.)

In interviews with more than 30 financial aid administrators, the researchers learned that the primary reason for non-participation in the federal loan program is fear of serious sanctions. Colleges stand to lose the ability to disburse federal Pell Grants, the largest source of grant aid, if their “cohort default rate” on federal loans is above 25 percent for three consecutive years. In the 1990s, the federal government aggressively went after for-profit trade colleges with high default rates, fueling still-lingering concerns among community colleges -- though much of the text of today’s report focuses on the argument that the fears are excessive, and that they should not deter community colleges from participating in the federal loan program. The Project on Student Debt found, for instance, that in 2005, the last year for which data are available, only one community college had a cohort default rate above the 25 percent threshold, and its 2004 rate had been much lower.

Many financial aid directors at community colleges that have chosen not to participate in the loan program did not return phone calls Wednesday. But those who did described concerns about default rates -- and a sense that students at their low-tuition institutions generally don’t need the loans.

“We at one time did participate in the student loan program. Back in the '90s when default rates were going through the ceiling, they came along and they were talking about taking away your eligibility to participate if you got above a certain percentage. We chose to withdraw from the federal loan program at that time because of our high default rate. We’re in a very economically disadvantaged area here,” explained Della Bays, financial aid coordinator at Mountain Empire Community College, in Virginia.

“We just haven’t seen the need” to reenter the program, she said, pointing out that students’ tuition and fees are largely offset by Pell Grants and state grant aid.

“We found that the majority of students were just borrowing the money to borrow it, because it was there, when they really didn’t need it for their education expenses,” Bays said. “We do offer students some of the alternative loans if they do inquire…. But we have very few who even borrow through the alternative loan program” -- probably, she estimates, about 25 at most per year.

That number’s around 10 at Georgia’s Savannah Technical College, said Timothy Cranford, director of financial aid there. Historically speaking, it’s his understanding that the college had been concerned about high default rates 10 or 15 years ago, Cranford said. But his main concerns today have to do with loan burdens. With federal and state grant aid largely covering most students' tuition bills, when students do borrow through private sources, it is typically, he said, to cover non-educational expenses -- the costs of living.

“A lot of our students are taking the degree and diploma programs so they can get back into the market place. To incur additional debt, I don’t see the rationale of doing that,” Cranford said.

“We’re perfectly comfortable with the idea of a middle-class student going into a four-year college and using loans to pay for room and board but there’s this sense that a low-income student at a community college using student loans to buy lunch so they can stay on campus and study, that there’s something wrong,” said Shireman.

Without access to loans, he added, “They are inclined to work more, to think that, what I need to do if I’m going to eat and pay rent is I have to work full-time while I go to school. Which of course dramatically reduces the likelihood that they’ll be able to succeed in college.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Many Community Colleges Opt Out of Loan Program

  • Posted by Martin Nadelman , President at Alamance Community College on April 17, 2008 at 8:20am EDT
  • The lack of loan availability to community college students is not a deterent to enrolling. As an individual who has worked in community colleges for 31 years, and one who was a student who borrowed funds to go to a four-year school, I do not see a need for our college to make federal loans available for our students.

    North Carolina has the third lowest community college tuition in the nation. Students eligible for full Pell grants are able to pay tuition, purchase books, and still have funds remaining to help with commuting and living expenses. In addition, our Foundation guarantees no student will be denied an education because of lack of funds.

    The results of the study cited reach a conclusion not validated from the data presented. It is a shame that "researchers" are able to reach erroneous conclusion which then make media headlines for sensational journalism.

  • clarifications needed
  • Posted by Glen S. McGhee , Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project on April 17, 2008 at 8:20am EDT
  • After initially being taken aback by these rates of nonparticipation, and wondering why I was not aware of this problem, I realized that public community colleges are being lumped in with technical-vocational high schools and PSAV (postsecondary adult vocational) programs. Many of the latter are run by local school boards, and lack accreditation, regional or national.

    The lack of accreditation in itself precludes these schools from gaining access to Title IV funds, including federally guaranteed student loans, subsidized and non-subsidized.

    If the overall focus is on the 2 yr to 4 yr track, those PSAV programs should be removed from the survey, as well as those non-accreditated institutions and schools.

    How many of these schools are accreditated at the secondary-level? By whom?

    By mixing accreditated institutions in with non-accreditated schools, I think this confuses the issue. How many, in fact, are for-profit or have a for-profit component?

    Certainly this is an important issue, and belies the meritocratic assumptions we have about higher ed, but it is more complex than can be adequately covered in 8 pages. Is more complete research available?

  • One size does not fit all.
  • Posted by R.F. on April 17, 2008 at 11:50am EDT
  • As an FAO who at one point spent eleven years in a three campus community college system, I would like to say for the record that the authors of the "research" have done a grave disservice to community colleges and their students.

    Further, it seems as though those folks associated with the research are oblivious to the current state of education loans over the past several years.

    I would like to share an example; I worked at a CC that had three campuses. The three campuses were NOT under one roof with one college code, one campus based allocation and one FISAP.

    The FAO at each campus faced differing student demographics, funding levels, staffing levels, etc. Each FAO was committed to providing the best FA program tailored as best as possible for their students.

    One campus was in Direct Lending. One Campus was in FFELP. The third campus was in FFELP but sat out for three years because two of the three students who borrowed Stafford loans one year went into default, hence a 66% default rate.

    It is a shame, as NASFAA suggests, that those folks responsible for this report only glossed over the surface results and did not attempt to understand what was going on before they released their report.

    I hope they are beginning to understand and will follow up with a second more in depth report.

  • Research Methodology Clarification
  • Posted by Deborah Cochrane , Research Analyst at Project on Student Debt on April 17, 2008 at 11:50am EDT
  • Mr. McGhee,

    We looked at public 2-year institutions that were offering Pell grants to students. Each of the institutions included in the analysis is therefore eligible to disburse Title IV funds, and has students enrolled in Title IV eligible programs.

    Please see the full report for more details on our methodology.

  • Loans for Communtiy College Students
  • Posted by Bradley Honious , Director on April 17, 2008 at 1:25pm EDT
  • I have been saying for years community colleges do a disservice to students by not offering low-interst federal student loans as an option to pay for college. When you take a good look at the cost of attending a community college it is apparent the COA is similar to the state university in the same area. The only real difference is the tuition costs. It's not just about tuition. We somehow expect community college students to live on the little grant money and work there way through school and are OK with university students to borrow and go fulltime and be more successful. To me it is better for a student to borrow so they can work less, and be successful and graduate earlier. They then can get into the workforce faster and start earning. When you take a closer look at this, they borrow, get out of school faster, start earning a salary, then pay back the loan. Keep in mind by graduating in 2-3 years from a community college versus 4-5 years - they have less debt. You then start earning a salary 2-3 years before those who stay 4-6 years so you actually are ahead financially.

    Also, keep in mind federal student loans have many debt relief options when you have a economic hardship or are unemployed. What other loan or credit card offers our alumni these options? I am all for opening up student loans to communtiy college students, counseling them on success and their responsibilities, and making them academically successful to graduate in 2-3 years.

    We have an obligation to ethically assist students in seeking the best funding for access to higher education and I will never lose sight of this.

    I also believe that financial literacy, default prevention, and earlier degree completion can be achieved with an intentional strategy for a financial literacy program, default prevention plan, and retention program on campus.

  • SCC Non-Participating ?
  • Posted by Bob on April 17, 2008 at 8:30pm EDT
  • For a college, not having IPEDS Financial Aid data is not the same as not having available Federal Financial Aid.

    Santiago Canyon College (SCC) in Orange, CA, with 20,248 students is categorized in the report "Many Community Colleges Opt Out of Loan Program" as "non-participating". This is incorrect.

    Students at SCC do have access to federal loans through the SCC Financial Aid Office, which are administered by the other district college (Santa Ana College (SAC) in Santa Ana, CA).

    The reasons are involved, but financial aid is now reported as being from SAC, per IPEDS guidance.

    A significant problem for community colleges is the studies and reports by individuals and groups not familiar with community colleges. The perceptions generated by these reports are frequently negative. Community colleges need to do better, change their policies, or simply put to “straighten up and fly right”. Outside attempts to guide policy for community colleges places a heavy burden on the community colleges (who don’t pay faculty to do such studies) to attempt to clarify and mitigate negative perceptions. Whether it is low completion rates inadequately measured by AA/AS degrees and transfers (for auto mechanics and apprenticeship carpenters) or the lack of available financial aid, the perceptions generated by these reports hinder meaningful reform and improvement.

    While the intent of many of these reports is to point to the value of community colleges and help community colleges to gain political support, the outcome is frequently more IPEDS-type reporting, more strings-attached funding, and more resources devoted to keep from losing ground.

    A suggestion to the researchers studying community colleges is to be sure you know what the data elements really contain. Asking a question to the stake-holders responsible for the data will typically lead to “everything is wonderful”. You need to verify the IPEDS (and other Federal Data) to be sure it really is meaningful and measures what is implied by the data element name/description. In many cases, it contains square pegs stuffed into the round holes of IPEDS and other centralized data systems.

    Community colleges don’t have the resources to constantly re-define and expand data elements and can’t up-date computer systems with every State (of California) and U.S. agency demand for new data. We do the best we can with the available data and resources when responding to mandated data requests.

  • Posted by Glen S. McGhee , Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project on April 17, 2008 at 9:50pm EDT
  • Deborah, thank you for steering me in the right direction. Although I still believe that there are problems with lumping public community colleges in with technical-vocational postsecondary adult programs, I was missing the fact that the latter ARE accredited -- either nationally or by speciality.

    This also came as a shock to me, since it was like discovering a network of specialized community colleges operating under my nose without knowing about it. Their failure to offer their students federally backed student loans is a matter of concern.

    Observing the data presented for Florida shows a low non-participation rate, largely due to the sheer massivity of the public 2 yr community college system which offers such access to its students.

    Those technical centers not participating typically have a different history and clientele, having originated with the school districts addressing the vocational-technical fraction of their student populations.

    Institutional history of these techical centers may account for their lower rates of participation. It is therefore likely that a different strategy will be needed for them to participate. For example, the 4 participating centers in FL appear to be tightly coupled with very large community colleges, whereas the others are not.

    As many scholars have explained, community colleges typically service diverse populations: those seeking to transfer to 4 yr institutions, and those with a vocational-technical orientation, which has lower status and prestige than the former (Labaree, Brint and Karabel, Dougherty).

    On some campuses, these two populations are actually segregated, which reinforces their differences. In these cases, the lack of participation seems to be associated with lower status, which can also limit the ability to initiate new programs. Again, strategy developed with status challenges in mind could prove effective.

    Disproportionate nonparticipation among minorities may also have a social stratification component that would need to be addressed.

    There are, it seems, a fair number of nationally or specialized accredited technical centers that are proprietary, and would also be able to offer their students access to federally guaranteed loans, not discussed in the report.

  • Santiago Canyon College
  • Posted by Deborah Cochrane , Research Analyst at Project on Student Debt on April 18, 2008 at 12:40pm EDT
  • Bob,

    Thank you for letting bringing this issue to our attention. We started our analysis with data from IPEDS and NSLDS and followed up with calls to confirm. SCC must have slipped through the cracks, and we are updating our list of colleges to reflect this.