Search News


Browse Archives

News

Student Aid, California to Cheyenne

August 17, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

More than 10 percent of the nation's college students are from California, and a much higher percentage -- given the country's demographic patterns -- live in and around areas with the highest costs of living. For students and families from those high cost areas, federal financial aid does not go as far as it does for peers from less expensive regions, because the formula for calculating how much a student's family is expected to pay toward his or her college expenses takes its financial resources -- but not its cost of living -- into account.

That reality has long been a low-level source of aggravation for college officials in California and elsewhere; a 2005 report by the Public Policy Institute of California described the problem, and university leaders from California and other high-cost regions have occasionally, though usually quietly, raised the prospect of altering the formula to take regional differences in costs into account. They've done so quietly because depending on how it was done, injecting a cost of living component into the federal financial aid formula could mean less aid for students from lower-cost areas.

A Government Accountability Office report issued Friday examines the pros and cons of applying a cost of living adjustment to the federal financial aid methodology, a study mandated by last year's renewal of the Higher Education Act. The study clearly documents that students from high-cost areas get shortchanged in their federal Pell Grant awards, and that adding a cost of living adjustment to the federal formula could increase awards for up to 10 percent of students from a small number of high-cost counties, especially families with relatively higher incomes.

But in laying out possible approaches the government might adopt to build in geographic sensitivity, the GAO report also points out that incorporating a cost of living adjustment into the Pell formula could diminish aid for more families than it would help, if the COLA was applied across the board rather than only to those with higher costs of living. (Taking that approach, though, would increase the costs of the Pell Grant Program, albeit modestly, GAO says.)

And the federal agency also notes that adding a cost of living adjustment could complicate the federal financial aid formula, arguably clashing with the approach that at least some financial aid experts have laid out as a priority for simplifying the student aid process: calculating a family's financial need based solely on adjusted gross income and family size.

The intricacies of the federal financial aid formula are mind numbing to all but the sharpest experts (of who this reporter is not one), but the key fact one needs to know to understand this issue is that in deciding how much federal financial aid a student qualifies for, the government determines two main numbers: the "cost of attendance" of the institution the student plans to attend, and the "expected family contribution" the student must make toward covering a chosen college's price.

In some small ways, regional differences are already built into those factors. The cost of attendance includes tuition and room and board, so to the extent that the college a student plans to attend charges more in tuition because it is in a high-cost area, or incorporates higher living expenses (for a student at a college in Los Angeles or New York, for instance), he or she may qualify for somewhat greater financial aid as a result.

And the federal financial aid formula does take into account a family's income, so to the extent that families living in high-cost areas on average earn more than other people, that difference is captured. But in calculating an individual student's expected family contribution, the federal aid formula does not account for geographic differences in a family's cost of living, which can vary widely based on such things as annual housing costs.

So, as seen in the table below, families with equal incomes in California's Bay area and Wyoming's largest city would, in the government's eyes, be seen as having significantly different amounts of money to put toward their educations, and qualify for comparable amounts of Pell Grant aid.

Cost of Living Differences for 2 Sample Students

  San Francisco Cheyenne, Wyo.
Total family income,
after taxes
$35,000 $35,000
Annual rent cost -$20,148 -$8,052
  ---------------- -----------
Available resources for education
and other expenses
$14,852 $26,948
Estimated Pell Grant, 2007-8 $2,360 $2,360

Source: Government Accountability Office

***

The GAO examined three possible indices currently used by federal agencies to account for geographic differences in cost of living, two of which focus on housing costs and a broader third aimed at regional price disparities, all of which have strengths and weaknesses, the GAO said. All three would increase aid to applicants from a small number of counties in high cost areas, most of which are metropolitan areas, and most of which are in California and the Northeast, though others are dotted around the country, as seen in the map below.

The number of students who might benefit from such an adjustment would be diminished by other aspects of the federal aid calculation. Students who have no expected financial family contribution because their incomes are too low and their assets are too few make up about a third of all aid applicants and nearly three in five Pell Grant recipients.

About 17 percent of aid applicants would probably qualify for additional aid because the cost of living adjustment would lower their expected family contribution (by setting aside a larger amount of their income for their needed living costs), although as many as half of those students -- the poorest of them -- might not qualify for more Pell Grant aid because they already qualify for the maximum grant. Those students could, however, qualify for additional subsidized loans for institutional financial aid, since some colleges and universities use the federal methodology to allocate their own institutional need-based student assistance.

More students would actually see their expected family contributions rise (because they are from low-cost areas) and the financial aid they're eligible for shrink if a cost of living adjustment were applied across the board, the GAO said.

Congress would be extremely unlikely to enact a policy that lowered available aid for more students than it helped, however, and would almost certainly -- if lawmakers sought to help Californians and other students from high-cost areas -- put in place a "hold harmless" provision that ensured no student would pay more.

The GAO report asked financial aid officers about whether adding a cost of living allowance to the federal formula would be a good idea, and many expressed concern that such an approach could add confusion (for families and aid officials) to an already complex process.

But many others suggested that a potential COLA be considered in the context of whether the federal financial aid formula is working more broadly -- a review that many favor, but could be a morass given its complexity.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Student Aid, California to Cheyenne

  • 2 parts to the equation
  • Posted by Observer on August 17, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • Shouldn't the geographic location of the school also be factored into the equation?

    If I'm attending a school in a low cost area (say Wyoming)- they are going to have lower overhead than a school in San Francisco.

  • Morass is a good word
  • Posted by lcl on August 17, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • @Observer - the article notes that the location of the school is by and large reflected already, not in calculation of the 'EFC' but in calculation of the school's 'Cost of Attendance.' The 'COA' is actually constructed by each school within the parameters roughly established by the Feds.

    As for the main issue, even as someone who for years has had to have those conversations with California & NYC families about how the current formula isn't as sensitive to their situation as it could be...

    I fall squarely in the camp of NOT accounting for local cost of living. The current formula is imperfect, yes, but the solution would still be imperfect.

    Consider that, generally speaking, the people who truly have the lowest current cost of living are those who own their own home outright, regardless of where that home is. Should the formula ask about that? Should we separate renters from mortgage-payers from those who own their homes outright? These differences can have great impact on cost of living.

    Likewise, certain metro areas have expansive public transportation systems (even if people choose not to avail themselves of them). Should we ask about commuting cost? The type of car one drives? Adding one variable to the formula still disguises many crucial differences.

    Working with large numbers of students from Seattle, the ones whose parents argued the loudest (though always very politely, I should add) about this 'flaw' in the formula were those who had chosen to live on a very expensive, secluded island requiring ferry commuting, and an additional drive, to the city for work. To protect the innocent we'll call it, "Mainbridge Island." This reminds us that, at least to some extent, cost of living also has a discretionary component.

    The federal formula, with all its faults, has generally stayed away from looking at 'discretionary' components of lifestyle. Starting to look at 'cost of living' gets knee-deep into some issues of 'discretionary' cost without really resolving several key components or issues.

    I'm not actually convinced I buy that the argument that doing this complicates the FAFSA itself, since you wouldn't need to collect any new data to calculate this.

    As for the underlying formula, Financial Aid administrators almost never do hand calculations anymore (and arguably most barely understand the entirety of the formula as it is now). We have software to calculate these things for us. Ask 100 financial aid administrators how self-employment tax gets accounted for in the current formula and see how many can answer anywhere in the neighborhood of correct. Not many, I'd wager. So I'm not sure I would stand on the 'it's too complex to do this' argument.

    I suppose at its heart my critique is that doing this would be a claim that it creates more sophisticated, targetted outcomes when by and large to me it's sophistication just for the sake of being sophisticated. It claims to "resolve" one variable without actually looking at it in regard to whether a specific family's cost of living is actually higher/lower than average.

    Can we do this? Sure. Should we do it? For now, I'll stick with no. It's not really that complicated, but it doesn't necessarily tell us anything about one specific family versus another.

  • double edged sword
  • Posted by David Sheridan on August 17, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • I visit a number of high schools here in New Jersey each year to do financial aid presentations. Some of the schools are in working class towns, some more affluent. Every year at least one parent will ask "does the aid formula take into account that we live in an expensive part of the country?" Trust me, it's not Joe the Plumber asking this question, it's Dr. Joe the Surgeon. So while he's not qualifying for a Pell Grant anyway and there are certainly pronounced cost of living differences around the country, there's an angle here of the more well-to-do trying to get their life styles accommodated, and the way some other aid is distributed, it would work that way. It's easy to see that folks in the DC to Boston corridor and coastal California would like this idea a lot...those in Arkansas or North Dakota or Mississippi, not so much.

    While this wouldn't complicate the aid application process (it already asks what state you're from), it would make the eligiblity determination process - already completely opaque in the eyes of most people -that much more murky. Yes, a dollar goes a lot farther in Manhattan, Kansas than it goes in Manhattan Island, but the need analysis formula is already rife with imperfections and inequities, I fear that this would just add more. How does someone explain to a needy family that their aid is being reduced because they live in a low income area? A hold harmless clause would help, but there have already been headaches caused by the perceived regionalization of some of this money (see SEOG allocations), so this is probably a can of worms best left sealed.

  • Regional Cost of Living
  • Posted by Alex Usher , Vice-President at Educational Policy Institute on August 17, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • Canada has had regional costs of living built into its student aid need assessment system for about 25 years. It's really not that hard to do. Invite us down sometime and we'll show you how its done.

  • Who are these people?
  • Posted by karen on August 18, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • Wealthy people are asking these questions? Don't you mean educated people, as in "took the time to research"? Look for example at Chicagoland. It is a very expensive place to live, & that includes its outlying burbs, all the way to corn country. Some of us are tradespeople; some follow the work wherever it leads. Some posters act like we all live on the North Shore & are plastic surgeons rolling in the dough! If some of us do our homework & start to question why we are shortchanged, that is a bad thing?? I have argued repeatedly the Fafsa asks the wrong questions or omits the questions that should be asked, more in line with some of the questions on the CSS profile.

  • What about pj?
  • Posted by Kayla Goldring , Financial Aid Director at MTVRS on August 18, 2009 at 8:15pm EDT
  • I'm wondering why neither the article nor the commentors made any mention of professional judgment?

    This is the way we in financial aid in the VERY expensive city of New York have been dealing with the disparities in cost of living vis-a-vis the FAFSA.

    Let's face it: It will NEVER be perfect. That's why we have the option of making adjustments, on a case by case basis (in my opinion, much better than incorporating it into the formula, which applies to all, indiscriminately) when we think the formula is treating a given student/student's family unfairly.

    So I'm against messing with the cost of living.