HIGHER EDUCATION
State Funding Trends
and Policies on
Affordability
Report to the Chairman, Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, United States Senate
December 2014
GAO-15-151
United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office
Highlights of GAO-15-151, a report to the
Chairman, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, United States Senate
December 2014
HIGHER EDUCATION
State Funding Trends and Policies on Affordability
Why GAO Did This Study
There is widespread concern that the
rising costs of higher education are
making college unaffordable for many
students and their families. Federal
and state support is central to
promoting college affordability;
however, persistent state budget
constraints have limited funding for
public colleges. GAO was asked to
study state policies affecting
affordability and identify approaches to
encourage states to make college
more affordable.
This report examines, among other
things, how state financial support and
tuition have changed at public colleges
over the past decade. It also examines
how the federal government works with
states to improve college affordability
and what additional approaches are
available for doing so. In conducting
this work, GAO analyzed trends in
state funding for public colleges,
tuition, and state student aid using data
from the U.S. Department of Education
for all public sector colleges from fiscal
years 2003 through 2012, the most
recent data available at the time of this
study. GAO also identified academic
studies on state higher education
policies and affordability published
since 2011 and interviewed 25
academic experts and organizations in
the fields of higher education or state
policy. Finally, GAO reviewed
Education programs and proposals
and obtained perspectives from
experts and organizations to identify
approaches the federal government
could use to incentivize state action.
What GAO Recommends
GAO does not make recommendations
in this report.
What GAO Found
From fiscal years 2003 through 2012, state funding for all public colleges
decreased, while tuition rose. Specifically, state funding decreased by 12 percent
overall while median tuition rose 55 percent across all public colleges. The
decline in state funding for public colleges may have been due in part to the
impact of the recent recession on state budgets. Colleges began receiving less of
their total funding from states and increasingly relied on tuition revenue during
this period. Tuition revenue for public colleges increased from 17 percent to 25
percent, surpassing state funding by fiscal year 2012, as shown below.
Correspondingly, average net tuition, which is the estimated tuition after grant aid
is deducted, also increased by 19 percent during this period. These increases
have contributed to the decline in college affordability as students and their
families are bearing the cost of college as a larger portion of their total family
budgets.
Public College Revenue from State Sources and Tuition, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2012
GAO found that federal support for higher education is primarily targeted at
funding student financial aid— over $136 billion in loans, grants, and work-study
in fiscal year 2013—rather than at programs involving states. GAO identified
several potential approaches that the federal government could use to expand
incentives to states to improve affordability, such as creating new grants,
providing more consumer information on affordability, or changing federal student
aid programs. Each of these approaches may have advantages and challenges,
including cost implications for the federal government and consequences for
students.
View GAO-15-151. For more information,
contact Melissa Emrey-Arras at (617) 788-
0534 or [email protected].
Page i GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
Letter 1
Background 2
From Fiscal Years 2003 through 2012, State Funding for Public
Colleges Decreased, while Tuition and Out-of-Pocket Costs for
Students Increased 7
State Policies Related to College Affordability Have Mixed Results 13
Current Federal Higher Education Programs Engaging with States
Are Limited, but Various Approaches Could Help Expand
Federal Incentives to States to Improve College Affordability 20
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 28
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 29
Overview 29
Data Analysis 30
Appendix II Trends in State Grant Aid to Students and Sources of Revenue for
Public Colleges 34
Appendix III Bibliography 36
Appendix IV Related GAO Products
39
Appendix V GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 40
Tables
Table 1: Number of Public, Private Nonprofit, and For-Profit
Colleges and Enrollment by Type, School Years 2002-
2003 and 2011-2012 6
Table 2: Examples of State Policies Related to Affordability at
Public Colleges 14
Table 3: Public College Revenue by Source in 2012 Constant
Dollars from Fiscal Years 2003 through 2012 35
Contents
Page ii GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
Figures
Figure 1: Public Higher Education Funding Relationships, 2012 4
Figure 2: Revenue for Public Colleges, by Source, Fiscal Years
2003 through 2012 9
Figure 3: Public College Revenue from Tuition and State Sources,
Fiscal Years 2003 through 2012 10
Figure 4: Published In-State Tuition and Fees for All Public
Colleges in 2012 Constant Dollars, School Years 2002-
2003 through 2011-2012 11
Figure 5: Estimated Average Net Tuition and Fees by College
Type and Student’s Income Group in 2012 Constant
Dollars, School Years 2003-2004 and 2011-2012 12
Figure 6: Estimated Ratio of State Need-Based and Merit-Based
Grant Aid at Public Colleges, School Years 2003-2004
through 2011-2012 13
Figure 7: State-by-State Shifts in Need-Based Aid, from School
Years 2003-2004 through 2011-2012 34
Abbreviations
Education U.S. Department of Education
ERIC Education Resources Information Center
FTE Full-time equivalent
GEAR UP Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Programs
IPEDS Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System
LEAP Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership
NASSGAP National Association of State Student Grant and Aid
Programs
NPSAS National Postsecondary Student Aid Study
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20548
December 16, 2014
The Honorable Tom Harkin
Chairman
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The rising costs of higher education have led to widespread concern that
college is becoming unaffordable for many students and their families. To
help cover the cost of attending college, in fiscal year 2013, the U.S.
Department of Education (Education) provided over $136 billion in
assistance to students through loans, grants, and work study programs.
In addition to these forms of federal financial aid, states play a key role in
promoting affordability in higher education in that they provide a
significant amount of financial support to public colleges and universities.
1
However, persistent state budget constraints have limited funding for
public colleges.
We were asked to examine how state policies have affected college
affordability and explore how the federal government can encourage state
support to help make public colleges more affordable for students and
their families. Specifically, we examined: (1) how state financial support
and tuition have changed at public colleges over the past decade, (2) how
states’ higher education policies have affected affordability, and (3) how
the federal government works with states to improve college affordability,
and what additional approaches are available for doing so.
In conducting this work, we analyzed trends in state funding for colleges,
state student aid, and tuition using public sector data from Education’s
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), National
Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), and the National Association
of State Student Grant and Aid Programs (NASSGAP) databases for the
fiscal year 2003 to 2012 time period (the most recent data available at the
time of our analysis). We assessed the reliability of these data by (1)
1
Throughout the report, we will refer to all publicly-funded institutions of higher education
as public colleges. In addition to public colleges, there are private colleges, which can be
nonprofit or for-profit.
Page 2 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
performing electronic testing of required data elements, (2) reviewing
existing information about the data and the system that produced them,
and (3) interviewing agency officials or organizational representatives for
more information when needed. We determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We also identified
academic studies published in approximately the last 3 years (January
2011 through April 2014, when we conducted the literature search) that
are based on original research and that discuss the relationship between
state-level higher education policies and college affordability. We
assessed the quality of these studies by evaluating their research
methods and determined that 23 studies were sufficiently reliable for use
in our report. In addition, we met with six academic researchers who had
recently published studies relevant to state higher education policy or
college affordability and were recognized as experts in their field. We also
met with a total of 19 organizations involved in higher education issues,
some of which focus on sponsoring and conducting policy research, and
others that represent public colleges—including community colleges,
state colleges and universities, and public land grant universities—and all
50 states, as well as organizations that represent students.
2
See
appendix I for more information on our selection criteria and other aspects
of our methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from February to December 2014 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Higher education provides important private and public benefits, and
multiple parties are involved in financing higher education costs. In terms
of private benefit, students may seek a postsecondary degree as a key to
a better economic future. In addition to providing such private benefits,
higher education has also been crucial to the development of the nation’s
cultural, social, and economic capital. In particular, higher education helps
2
Throughout this report, we refer to the collective group of 25 academic experts, research
organizations, and advocacy organizations as “experts and organizations,” unless
otherwise specified.
Background
Page 3 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
maintain the nation’s competitiveness in a global economy by providing
students the means to learn new skills and enhance their existing
abilities. The federal government, states, students, and colleges, in turn,
all play important roles in financing higher education costs, thereby
influencing affordability (see fig. 1). Affordability is an important factor
affecting whether students access and complete degrees, and is
commonly thought of as the cost of higher education relative to student or
family income.
3
3
Additionally, some studies may factor returns on investment in college, such as
increased future earnings potential, into measures of affordability. For example, a recent
National Bureau of Economic Research study suggests that the benefits of higher
education, as indicated through earnings premiums for college graduates vs. non-
graduates may have increased over the past few decades. See National Bureau of
Economic Research, Making College Worth It: A Review of Research on the Returns to
Higher Education (Cambridge, MA: May 2013). We did not analyze earnings data as part
of this review.
Page 4 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
Figure 1: Public Higher Education Funding Relationships, 2012
Note: Arrow thickness is scaled to fiscal year 2012 (or school year 2011-2012, where applicable)
funding levels. State funding for colleges includes appropriations and grants and contracts for
research. Federal and state aid arrows represent aid to undergraduates at public colleges. Federal
grants to states include only higher education programs related to college affordability. Land-grant
appropriations and federally funded research projects are included as part of the funding from the
federal government to public colleges. Benefits from tax credits and deductions for higher education
are not included.
The Department of Education was created in part to strengthen the
federal government’s commitment to assuring access to equal
educational opportunity. To that end, the federal government offers
several forms of financial aid to students and families through multiple
programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965,
as amended. These programs include the William D. Ford Federal Direct
Loan program, the Federal Pell Grant program (Pell Grants), Federal
Perkins Loans, and Federal Work-Study, and they are available at all
Federal Role
Page 5 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
eligible institutions of higher education, including both public and private
colleges.
4
In fiscal year 2013, Education provided over $136 billion in
financial aid to students, including loans and grants.
5
Some aid is targeted
toward low-income students based on their financial need. For example,
in fiscal year 2013, Education provided over $32 billion in Pell Grants to
eligible low-income students. In addition to funding for student aid,
Education provides higher education funding for states and colleges.
Funding for states includes two grant programs to support increased
access for low-income students: 1) the Gaining Early Awareness and
Readiness for Undergraduates Programs (GEAR UP) and 2) the College
Access Challenge Grant Program. The federal government also provides
funding to colleges for institutional development and grants and contracts
for research projects.
The states’ role in higher education begins with establishing public
colleges. In addition, states have been a significant source of revenue for
public colleges through state appropriations for operating expenses.
States may also fund public colleges through grants or contracts for
activities such as research projects. In addition to state funding for
colleges, most states have grant programs that provide financial aid
directly to students.
6
State grant aid can be allocated based on financial
need; merit, such as grades or test scores; or a combination of both.
Public colleges charge tuition and fees, and may also provide aid to
students depending on the college’s financial aid programs. These
colleges are generally administered by publicly elected or appointed
officials and are supported primarily by funding from federal, state, and
local sources—in addition to revenue from tuition and fees. They can also
differ in type, length of degree programs, and mission. For example, while
4
See GAO, Higher Education: Improved Tax Information Could Help Families Pay for
College, GAO-12-560 (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2012) for more information on financial
assistance programs for students.
5
Generally, while financial assistance provided through loans must be repaid, grants do
not need to be repaid.
6
According to information from the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid
Programs, some states may also provide financial assistance to students through loan
programs.
State Role
Public Colleges
Page 6 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
some public colleges may offer 2-year associate’s degree programs,
others offer 4-year bachelor’s degree programs. As of the 2011-2012
school year, there were more than 2,000 public colleges that enrolled
over 11 million students, which represented 67 percent of total college
enrollment across all college types, including private nonprofit and for-
profit colleges in the United States.
7
Moreover, enrollment at public
colleges increased by almost 2 million students from school years 2002-
2003 through 2011-2012 (see table 1).
Table 1: Number of Public, Private Nonprofit, and For-Profit Colleges and Enrollment by Type, School Years 2002-2003 and
2011-2012
2002-2003 2011-2012
Number of Colleges Enrollment Number of Colleges
b
Enrollment
Public colleges
b
All public colleges 2,269
a
9,258,608 2,056 11,123,626
Public 4-year colleges 664 5,474,181 703 6,797,623
Public 2-year colleges 1,218 3,710,468 1,091 4,276,113
Private nonprofit colleges
All private nonprofit colleges 2,305 2,893,458 1,950 3,482,156
Private nonprofit 4-year colleges 1,789 2,815,835 1,658 3,420,534
Private nonprofit 2-year colleges 327 57,928 197 47,303
For-profit colleges
All for-profit colleges 2,949 817,156 3,553 2,047,844
For-profit 4-year 375 341,490 750 1,258,784
For-profit 2-year 829 239,996 1,077 489,042
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). | GAO-15-151
a
The “All colleges” categories include data for less than 2-year colleges
b
Enrollment figures represent full-time equivalent enrollment for undergraduate and graduate
students
Aside from federal, state, and local funding, colleges also collect revenue
through tuition and fees charged to students. The published tuition and
fees can be referred to as the “sticker price” and do not necessarily reflect
what students and families actually pay once financial aid has been taken
into account. In contrast, net tuition and fees reflect the out-of-pocket
7
Throughout the report, enrollment figures represent full-time equivalent enrollment for
undergraduate and graduate students.
Students and Families
Page 7 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
expenses for students and families in that they represent tuition and fees
net of all grant aid received by the student.
8
Students may receive grant
aid from the state, the federal government, or the college they are
attending.
In the decade spanning fiscal years 2003 to 2012, state funding provided
to public colleges decreased, both overall and when measured per
student.
9
Specifically, state funding for public colleges decreased by 12
percent overall, from $80 billion in fiscal year 2003 to $71 billion in fiscal
year 2012.
10
Most of the funding that public colleges receive from states is
in the form of appropriations (funds provided by state appropriations acts
for current operating expenses), while the rest of the funding from state
sources is in the form of grants and contracts that are identified for a
specific project or program.
The reductions in state funding to public colleges are even more
significant when enrollment levels are taken into account. The number of
8
We use the term out-of-pocket costs to describe tuition and fees after grant aid is
deducted. We do not deduct loans from these costs, as they generally have to be repaid.
There may be other expenses associated with attending college, in addition to tuition and
fees, such as living expenses, which we did not analyze in this report.
9
Fiscal year in the IPEDS financial data refers to the institutional fiscal year, and therefore
may vary across institutions. Each survey year the participating colleges report data from
the last fiscal year that ended on or before October 31.
10
All financial data presented in this report are adjusted for inflation and presented in
constant 2012 dollars unless otherwise noted.
From Fiscal Years
2003 through 2012,
State Funding for
Public Colleges
Decreased, while
Tuition and Out-of-
Pocket Costs for
Students Increased
State Funding for Higher
Education Decreased by
12 Percent Overall and by
24 Percent per Student
Page 8 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
students enrolled in public colleges rose by 20 percent from school year
2002-2003 to school year 2011-2012. Correspondingly, median state
funding per student declined 24 percent—from $6,211 in fiscal year 2003
to $4,695 in fiscal year 2012.
11
This trend has been driven mostly by 4-
year colleges, which experienced faster enrollment increases and steeper
declines in median state funding per student than 2-year colleges.
State funding declines may be attributable, in part, to prevailing economic
conditions and competing state budget priorities. Likewise, 19 of 25
experts and organizations we interviewed cited the 2007 to 2009
recession as a factor that directed trends in state funding. Several of
these experts and organizations described public higher education as the
“balance wheel of state economies,” where states reduce higher
education funding during constrained economic times, in part because
public colleges can use tuition as an additional funding stream unlike
other program areas that do not have alternative sources of revenue. Our
analysis of funding trends corroborates this characterization by showing
that state funding for public colleges gradually increased between fiscal
years 2005 and 2008, but began steadily declining in fiscal year 2008
during the most recent recession until fiscal year 2012, while tuition
revenue began climbing at a faster pace to fill the gap. These reductions
may have been mitigated to some extent by the Recovery Act.
12
Of the 19
experts and organizations we spoke with about the Recovery Act’s effect
on state support for higher education, 16 cited it as having influenced
higher education funding levels of which 7 believed the effect was short-
term. In addition to economic conditions, 19 of 25 experts and
organizations we interviewed cited competing state budget priorities, such
as healthcare and K-12 education, as a factor in declining state funding
for higher education. State funding trends have contributed to shifting
11
To calculate state funding per student, we divided total state funding by total full time
equivalent (FTE) enrollment for all public colleges. The number of FTE students is
calculated based on fall student headcounts as reported by the college to IPEDS. The full-
time equivalent (headcount) of the college’s part-time enrollment is estimated by taking a
portion of the part-time headcount and adding it to the full-time enrollment headcounts to
obtain an FTE for all students enrolled in the fall.
12
The Recovery Act created the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, which provided funds for
states to use to restore state support for elementary, secondary, and postsecondary
education. States were required to agree to meet maintenance of effort requirements as a
condition for receiving these funds. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
Pub. L. No. 111-5, div. A, tit. XIV, § 14005(d)(1), 123 Stat. 115 , 282-283.
Page 9 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
public colleges’ share of revenue away from state sources and toward
tuition (see fig. 2).
Figure 2: Revenue for Public Colleges, by Source, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2012
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. “Tuition” includes revenues from all
tuition and fees assessed against students, net of refunds, discounts and allowances, for educational
purposes. “Local” sources refer to funds provided and grants made by local government. “State”
sources refer to funds received by colleges through state appropriations laws or through grants and
contracts from state government agencies. “Federal” sources include appropriations for meeting
current operating expenses, grants, contracts, and federal grant aid to students such as Pell Grants.
“Other sources” include private gifts, grants and contracts; sales and services of educational
activities; auxiliary enterprises; hospital revenues.
From fiscal years 2003 to 2012, revenue from state sources shrunk from
32 percent of total revenue to 23 percent. Meanwhile, growth in tuition
revenue outpaced that of all other types of revenue over this period,
increasing from 17 percent to 25 percent and making tuition the top single
source of revenue for public colleges. In contrast, shares of federal, local,
and other revenue sources remained relatively stable. Total revenue
figures from each source are displayed in appendix II. By fiscal year
2012, tuition had overtaken state funding as a source of revenue for
public colleges (see fig. 3).
Page 10 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
Figure 3: Public College Revenue from Tuition and State Sources, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2012
Notes: “Tuition” includes revenues from all tuition and fees assessed against students, net of refunds,
discounts and allowances, for educational purposes. “State” sources refer to funds received by
colleges through state appropriations laws or through grants and contracts from state government
agencies.
Published tuition prices and out-of-pocket costs increased for students in
all income quartiles both at 4-year and 2-year public colleges, making
college less affordable for students and families. Median published tuition
prices for in-state students increased by 55 percent from about $3,745 in
school year 2002-2003 to $5,800 in school year 2011-2012 (see fig. 4).
13
Though tuition is typically higher at 4-year colleges than at 2-year
colleges, the increase over the period was similar between the two types
of colleges: both increased by about 54 percent. Median published tuition
also increased for out-of-state students during this period, though less
dramatically than for in-state students, rising by 31 percent from the 2002-
2003 school year to the 2011-2012 school year.
13
All tuition figures cited in this report also include fees. Fees include all fixed sum
charges that are required of a large proportion of all students.
Median Published Tuition
Prices Have Increased by
55 Percent and Average
Out-of-Pocket Costs Have
Increased 19 Percent
since Fiscal Year 2003
Page 11 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
Figure 4: Published In-State Tuition and Fees for All Public Colleges in 2012 Constant Dollars, School Years 2002-2003
through 2011-2012
Note: All figures are adjusted for inflation and are presented in constant 2012 dollars.
Published tuition prices do not necessarily indicate actual costs incurred
by students and families, in part because grant aid can help reduce out-
of-pocket costs. Thus, when all grant aid is taken into account, out-of-
pocket costs for students, or estimated average net tuition, increased by
19 percent across all public colleges from $1,874 in the 2003-2004 school
year to $2,226 in the 2011-2012 school year.
14
The changes in estimated
average net tuition vary by student’s income quartile and college type
14
Estimates of out-of-pocket costs are presented as averages and are therefore not
comparable to published tuition estimates, which are presented as medians. The
estimated out-of-pocket costs are based on the NPSAS sample and subject to sampling
error. Unless otherwise noted, all percentage estimates in this report have 95 percent
confidence intervals of within +/- 8 percentage points of the percent estimate, and other
numerical estimates have confidence intervals within +/- 8 percent of the estimate itself.
See appendix I for additional information on sampling error.
Page 12 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
(see fig. 5).
15
In particular, the increases in average net tuition are largest
for students in the higher income quartiles attending 4-year public
colleges.
Figure 5: Estimated Average Net Tuition and Fees by College Type and Student’s Income Group in 2012 Constant Dollars,
School Years 2003-2004 and 2011-2012
Notes: All figures are adjusted for inflation and are presented in constant 2012 dollars. Net tuition is
tuition and fees after all grant aid is deducted, including all merit-based, need-based, combination,
and other types of grant aid provided to students from local, state, federal, private, non-profit,
institutional, and other sources.
While most state grant aid to students is need-based, our analysis shows
a gradual shift toward merit-based aid from school years 2003-2004 to
15
Net tuition is tuition and fees after all grant aid is deducted, including all merit-based,
need-based, combination, and other types of grant aid provided to students from local,
state, federal, private, non-profit, institutional, and other sources. Income quartiles in this
report follow the standard NPSAS methodology of calculating quartiles separately for
dependent and independent students. Income for dependent students is typically parents’
income, while for independent students it is their own income in addition to that of a
spouse, if applicable.
Page 13 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
2011-2012 (see fig. 6). As a result, states are targeting a smaller portion
of their estimated available grant aid to students with the greatest
financial need. Some of the experts and organizations we interviewed
noted that the growth in merit-based aid may be related to its political
popularity, especially among state legislators. Appendix II shows state-by-
state shifts toward awarding either more need-based aid or less, between
school years 2003-2004 and 2011-2012.
Figure 6: Estimated Ratio of State Need-Based and Merit-Based Grant Aid at Public
Colleges, School Years 2003-2004 through 2011-2012
Notes: Need-based grant data in this figure also include combination grants that have both a need-
based and merit-based component. Merit-based grant aid includes any aid that does not take need
into consideration.
Students and their families are now bearing the cost of college as a larger
portion of their total family budgets. Across all students, the ratio of net
tuition to annual income has increased about one and a half times from
the 2003-2004 school year to the 2011-2012 school year, and was
greater for students in the lowest income quartile than those in the
highest quartile. Specifically, the ratio of net tuition to annual income was
about four times higher for students in the lowest income quartile when
compared to those in the highest quartile. Combined, these factors make
attending college less affordable for students.
States, along with public colleges, have implemented various policies
related to college affordability, but their effects are mixed or unclear
according to the 23 studies we reviewed and the 25 experts and
organizations we interviewed. These policies include financial strategies
like investing in state grant aid and techniques aimed at reducing the time
it takes a student to complete their degree (see table 2).
State Policies Related
to College
Affordability Have
Mixed Results
Page 14 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
Table 2: Examples of State Policies Related to Affordability at Public Colleges
Financial Policies Time-To-Degree Policies
Budget process, priorities, and rules Credit transfer programs/Articulation
agreements
State grant aid (merit, need-based,
hybrid)
b
Limits on credit accumulation
Performance-based funding
c
Defining “full time” as 15 credits
Tuition limits or freezes Guidance for completing degree requirements
Tuition differentiation and set-asides College preparation efforts/limiting need for
remediation
a
Fee waivers
d
Tuition refunds for timely completion
College cost containment and efficiency
Source: GAO analysis of information from academic experts, higher education organizations, and literature review results. | GAO-15-
151
a
Tuition differentiation refers to the practice of charging different tuition to different types of students,
commonly seen when public colleges offer different rates to in-state students and out-of-state
students. Tuition set-asides are when colleges reserve a portion of their tuition revenue to fund
financial aid programs, which may distribute aid on the basis of financial need.
b
Credit transfer programs and articulation agreements specify whether course credits transferred
between colleges are acceptable for meeting degree or program requirements.
c
Credit accumulation refers to earning college credits. Not all credits count toward degree or program
requirements.
d
Remediation is coursework for students lacking skills necessary to perform college level work at the
degree of rigor required by the college or program. We previously reported that students in remedial
education have relatively low chances of completing their degrees or certificates within 8 years. See
GAO, Community Colleges: New Federal Research Center May Enhance Current Understanding of
Developmental Education, GAO-13-656, (Washington, D.C.: September 2013).
As we noted previously, economic trends and competing budget priorities
can affect state funding for higher education, which in turn has
implications for affordability at public colleges. In addition, an individual
state’s budget policies may influence state spending patterns. One study
we reviewed tested whether certain state fiscal policies, such as balanced
budget requirements and debt limits, would reduce state spending on
higher education. That study suggests these policies did not have a
statistically significant relationship with state expenditures on public
higher education. However, the study did show a negative relationship
between another type of fiscal policy—tax and expenditure limits—and
the level of state spending on public higher education.
16
Specifically, in
16
See Serna, Gabriel R. and Gretchen Harris. “Higher Education Expenditures and State
Balanced Budget Requirements: Is There a Relationship?” Journal of Education Finance,
vol. 39, no. 3 (2014): 175-202.
Financial Policies
Page 15 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
states with tax and expenditure limits in place, such as those that limit the
amount of revenue a state can take in from taxpayers, spending on higher
education was about 3 percent lower than states without these types of
policies.
There is wide variation in state policies related to setting tuition, as each
state has its own higher education governance system that may delegate
the primary authority to the governor, state legislature, governing boards,
individual public colleges, or a combination of these stakeholders. Several
experts and organizations who commented on this topic said that when
tuition is set centrally by the state and colleges have less authority, there
are positive effects on affordability for students. Given recent economic
conditions, some states have negotiated agreements with their public
colleges to curb tuition hikes, at times in exchange for more state funding.
Most experts and organizations we spoke with—11 of 15 who commented
on this issue—said these limits on tuition growth do not usually have long-
term effects on improving affordability for students, or have negative
effects on affordability. However, in the case of Maryland, a few experts
and organizations said the state has successfully suppressed tuition
increases through cost efficiencies achieved by its public colleges, which
may result in more sustainable benefits for students.
Regardless of how tuition is set, it is clear that specific tuition levels
directly affect students. For example, two studies found that policies
allowing rising tuition negatively affected affordability for students at
public colleges in California, even when considering contributions from
financial aid.
17
In addition, some studies found that tuition levels can also
affect student behavior and decision-making. For example, results from a
survey of students at about 15 large public colleges found that an
estimated 73 percent of students reported buying fewer or cheaper
textbooks, and 46 percent reported skipping meals in response to
increased college costs.
18
Moreover, tuition levels may influence students’
17
See Jones, Jessika. “College Costs and Family Income: The Affordability Issue at UC
and CSU.” (Sacramento, Calif.: California Postsecondary Education Commission, Report
11-02, 2011) and Poliakoff, Michael, and Armand Alacbay. “Best Laid Plans: The
Unfulfilled Promise of Public Higher Education in California.” (Washington, D.C.: American
Council of Trustees and Alumni, 2012).
18
In addition to buying fewer or cheaper textbooks, this group of students reported
reading books on reserve. See Chatman, Steve. “Wealth, Cost, and the Undergraduate
Student Experience at Large Public Research Universities.” (Berkeley, Calif: Center for
Studies in Higher Education, University of California at Berkeley, 2011).
Page 16 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
decisions about whether to attend college at all. For example, two
nationwide studies of public colleges found that increased tuition levels
were associated with decreased enrollment.
19
Like tuition, state grant aid directly affects students in that it can reduce
their out-of-pocket expenses for college.
20
In addition, evidence from five
recent studies we reviewed suggests that state grant aid, both merit- and
need-based, has positive effects on enrollment.
21
For example, a study of
a state scholarship program in Washington suggests that receiving the
aid increased a student’s probability of enrolling in college by nearly 14 to
19 percentage points, depending on the cohort and controlling for other
factors.
22
This positive effect on enrollment may indicate that students
enroll because they perceive college to be more affordable. Additionally,
a study of selected scholarships in four states shows that the aid helped
students stay in college. Specifically, an additional $1,000 in aid received
was associated with a 2 to 7 percent increase in persistence—the
19
See Hemelt, Steven W. and Dave E. Marcotte. “The Impact of Tuition Increases on
Enrollment at Public Colleges and Universities.” Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, vol. 33, no. 4 (2011): 435–457: and Titus, Marvin A. and Brian Pusser. “States’
Potential Enrollment of Adult Students: A Stochastic Frontier Analysis.” Research in
Higher Education, vol. 52, no. 6 (2011):555–571.
20
While grant aid in general directly affects students’ out of pocket costs, one academic
expert and one higher education organization we spoke with said that the availability of
federal financial aid may unintentionally provide colleges with the opportunity to raise
tuition knowing that eligible students would be able to cover it through financial aid. We did
not examine this assertion in the course of our work as we did not identify any studies on
this topic that met the criteria for our literature review. For a discussion of how federal
student loan limit increases relate to tuition levels, see GAO, Federal Student Loans:
Impact of Loan Limit Increases on College Prices Is Difficult to Discern, GAO-14-7,
(Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2014).
21
See Hemelt 2011; Rae, Brian. “2013 Alaska Performance Scholarship Outcomes
Report.” (Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education, 2013); Scott-
Clayton, Judith. “On Money and Motivation: A Quasi-Experimental Analysis of Financial
Incentives for College Achievement.” Journal of Human Resources, vol. 46, no. 3 (2011);
Welbeck, Rashida et al. “Piecing Together the College Affordability Puzzle: Student
Characteristics and Patterns of (Un)Affordability.” (New York, New York: MDRC, 2014);
Zhang, Liang, Shouping Hu and Victor Sensenig. “The Effect of Florida’s Bright Futures
Program on College Enrollment and Degree Production: An Aggregated-Level Analysis.”
Research in Higher Education, vol. 54, (2013): 746–764.
22
See O’Brien, Colleen. “Expanding Access and Opportunity: The Washington State
Achievers Scholarship.” (Washington, D.C.: Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in
Higher Education, 2011).
Page 17 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
likelihood that students will continue their education, on average.
23
Regarding state grant aid programs, there is general consensus among
experts and organizations we interviewed that investing in need-based
grant aid is a more efficient use of resources than merit aid in that the aid
is targeted to those students who need it most. Specifically, 20 of 25
experts and organizations we spoke with said that prioritizing need-based
aid over merit-based aid is important for improving affordability.
Many states have established or are considering policies that financially
reward public colleges for progress toward performance goals, which
most experts and organizations we spoke with—19 of 25—said could
improve affordability for students. The link between these types of policies
(called performance-based funding) and college affordability depends on
the specific goals being measured. For example, goals such as targeting
college-provided aid to low-income students or moderating tuition
increases are more relevant to affordability than to other performance
outcomes. While the studies we reviewed on existing performance-based
funding policies do not examine their effect on affordability, they show
mixed results on their effectiveness in incentivizing desired outcomes in
other areas. For example, a study on performance-based funding in
Washington, a state policy that was designed to incentivize degree
completion, suggests that the policy did not affect the number of
Associates’ degrees that public colleges produced. However, the number
of certificates completed rose after the policy was introduced. The authors
noted the possibility that colleges were encouraged to award certificates
that could be completed more quickly.
24
In another case, a study of
performance-based funding in Tennessee suggests that the financial
incentive tied to the policy, even when doubled, was not associated with
increases in retention rates.
25
That is, the policy was not successful in
achieving the desired outcome, possibly because there was not enough
of a financial incentive to influence institutional outcomes.
26
Recently,
23
See Welbeck 2014.
24
See Hillman, Nicholas W., David A. Tandberg, and Alisa Hicklin-Fryar. “Evaluating the
impacts of ‘new’ performance funding in higher education.” Forthcoming.
25
Tennessee refers to this policy as outcomes-based funding, but for the purposes of this
report we use the term performance-based funding to refer to all policies that tie state
funding to how well a public college performs on state-determined metrics.
26
See Sanford, Thomas and James M. Hunter. “Impact of Performance-funding on
Retention and Graduation Rates.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, vol. 19, no. 33
(2011).
Page 18 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
however, Tennessee started channeling all of its higher education funding
through a performance-based system,
27
and this level of financial
commitment may be effective in shaping colleges’ behavior. Time may
also be a factor in whether performance-based funding policies are
successful incentives. For example, a recent, nationwide study of
performance-based policies shows that there is little evidence tying
performance funding to positive outcomes, in part because so few states
maintain their policies long enough to change colleges’ behavior.
28
Nevertheless, the study did suggest a positive outcome of performance-
based funding— increased degree completion in several states—but only
after states kept the policy in place for an average of 7 years.
29
As of early
2014, 30 states were in the process of implementing performance-based
funding policies or had already done so, according to a national
organization representing state legislatures. For many of these policies, it
is too soon to know whether they will be effective at improving
affordability or achieving other desired outcomes.
Experts and organizations also pointed to state policies that allow
students to make more efficient use of their time in college, which may
help them save on tuition costs. While much of the research we reviewed
did not specifically address state policies on timely degree completion, as
many of them are relatively new, there was general agreement among
those we interviewed that reducing the time it takes for a student to
complete their degree can help make college more affordable. Various
states have implemented policies or launched voluntary initiatives
encouraging students to take the appropriate number of credits for their
degree program—neither too few nor too many. For example, Hawaii’s
“15 to Finish” media campaign is designed to raise awareness that
students should take 15 credit hours per semester to graduate on time.
27
In addition, Tennessee recently established a program offering in-state high school
graduates two free years of education at the state’s community and technical colleges.
The results of this wide-reaching program remain to be seen.
28
See Tandberg, David A. and Nicholas W. Hillman. “State Higher Education
Performance Funding: Data, Outcomes, and Policy Implications.” Journal of Education
Finance, vol. 39, no. 3 (2014): 222-243 and Dougherty, Kevin J., Rebecca S. Natow, and
Blanca E. Vega. “Popular but Unstable: Explaining Why State Performance Funding
Systems in the US Often Do Not Persist.” Teachers College Record, vol. 114, no. 3
(2012): 1-41.
29
See Tandberg 2014. At the time of the study, less than a third of the states that had
implemented performance funding systems maintained their program for 7 years or more.
Time-to-Degree Policies
Page 19 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
Several states have policies to limit credit accumulation so that students
do not take—and pay for—more courses than necessary to complete
their degree.
According to the experts and organizations we interviewed, states and
public colleges are also working to ensure students take and get credit for
courses that count toward their degrees. To that end, states play a role in
enabling credit transfer programs and articulation agreements
30
between
public colleges to ensure that students do not have to re-take courses
they have already passed and paid for at another college. We have
previously noted that students taking additional credits as a result of
being unable to transfer credits would likely have to pay additional tuition,
though the extent to which these costs are borne by the student, for
example, would vary depending on the student’s eligibility for financial
aid.
31
There are also state policies that establish dual enrollment programs that
allow high school students to begin earning college credits early, as well
as college preparation programs—like Indiana’s 21st Century Scholars —
that could help students avoid taking remedial college courses that may
not count toward a degree.
32
State aid programs may also help with
college preparation by raising awareness of the academic requirements
to get into college. For example, in a study of merit scholarships offered
to high school graduates in Alaska who planned to attend selected
colleges in-state, eligible students were prepared for a more efficient
college experience.
33
They took far fewer remedial courses and enrolled
in more total credit hours on average than did their non-eligible peers.
Specifically, the study shows that after one semester, the average
scholarship recipient would have accumulated 13.2 credit hours toward a
30
An articulation agreement is an agreement between or among colleges that specifies
whether course credits transferred between colleges count toward meeting specific
degree or program requirements.
31
See GAO, Transfer Students: Postsecondary Institutions Could Promote More
Consistent Consideration of Coursework by Not Basing Determinations on Accreditation ,
GAO-06-22 (Washington, D.C.: October 2005)
32
The National Center for Education Statistics defines remedial courses as those for
students lacking skills necessary to perform college level work at the degree of rigor
required by the institution.
33
See Rae 2013.
Page 20 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
degree compared to 8.5 hours for a non-recipient, which brings them
closer to a full-time schedule of 15 credit hours.
Another state or public college policy to minimize students’ time-to-degree
focuses on granting credit for knowledge gained outside of the classroom,
which can ultimately reduce the overall cost of college. This can include
taking tests to demonstrate knowledge or skills developed through work
experience or prior learning. According to a survey of public college
students at about 15 large public colleges, 22 percent of students chose
to take tests for course credit instead of paying to take the actual
courses.
34
Known as competency-based education, this effort has
recently gained traction at the national level, as Education recently invited
colleges to participate in a research study involving this type of policy.
34
See Chatman 2011.
Current Federal
Higher Education
Programs Engaging
with States Are
Limited, but Various
Approaches Could
Help Expand Federal
Incentives to States
to Improve College
Affordability
Page 21 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
Current federal funding for higher education is primarily targeted at
supporting students rather than on collaborating with states on higher
education policies affecting affordability. In fiscal year 2013, for example,
Education provided over $136 billion directly to students through loans,
grants, and work-study to help cover the costs of higher education
through seven different federal programs. That same year, Education
spent a relatively small amount, $358 million, on two higher education
programs that we found could be related to college affordability and that
involve states: 1) the College Access Challenge Grant and 2) the Gaining
Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR
UP).
35
These two programs provide grants to states and are targeted at
increasing access and success for low-income students in higher
education:
• The College Access Challenge Grant program was a formula
matching grant that provided funding to states based, in part, on the
relative number of state residents between the ages of 5 and 17 and
between the ages of 15 and 44 who are living below the applicable
poverty line.
36
Funds could be used to provide information to students
and families on financing options for college, provide need-based
grant aid to students, and conduct outreach activities for students who
may be at risk of not enrolling in or completing college, among other
uses.
37
To receive grants under the College Access Challenge Grant,
states were required to maintain their funding commitment to higher
education—at a level equal to the average amount provided over the
5 preceding fiscal years for public colleges—through a maintenance
of effort provision.
38
States had the option to apply for a waiver from
35
In contrast to the funding system in higher education, there are over a dozen K-12
education programs where the federal government works with states, such as making
grants to states for providing education to children with disabilities under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. Funding for these programs is sizable. For example, in
fiscal year 2013, Education’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and
Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services provided over $36
billion combined in grants to state and local governments. See Office of Management and
Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year
2015 (Washington, D.C.: March 4, 2014).
36
20 U.S.C. § 1141(c).
37
20 U.S.C. § 1141(f).
38
The maintenance of effort provision also requires that states maintain funding for
financial aid to students attending private colleges. 20 U.S.C. § 1015f.
Federal Higher Education
Programs are Targeted
More at Student Financial
Aid than Programs
Involving States on
College Affordability
Page 22 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
this requirement.
39
In fiscal year 2013, $142 million was appropriated
for the program, and of this amount, only $72 million was provided to
states because not all states met the maintenance of effort
requirements for receiving grant funding, according to Education
officials.
40
Education’s authority to award grants under this program
expired at the end of fiscal year 2014, further limiting federal
incentives to states to improve affordability.
41
• The GEAR UP program provides competitive matching grants to
states, as well as to partnerships composed of local educational
agencies, colleges, and other community organizations or entities.
42
The program is intended to encourage grantees to provide support to
assist low-income students prepare for and succeed in postsecondary
education. State grantees are required to use GEAR UP program
funds for a variety of required activities, including providing
scholarships and encouraging students to enroll in rigorous
coursework to reduce the need for remedial coursework at the
postsecondary level, and grantees are also permitted to use grant
funds for certain other purposes. These activities could improve
affordability by helping students obtain financial aid to cover higher
education costs or reducing the amount of time necessary to complete
a degree. In fiscal year 2013, $286 million was appropriated for the
program, and of this amount, almost $123 million was provided for 34
state grant awards and over $163 million was awarded to partnership
grants.
In addition to the programs listed above, Education officials said that they
currently draw attention to college affordability through consumer
information and ad hoc communication such as letters to state governors,
39
20 U.S.C. § 1015f(c).
40
According to Education officials, 28 states received grant awards in fiscal year 2013,
which included 16 states that met maintenance of effort requirements, 6 states that
received waivers from these requirements, and 6 states that did not receive waivers but
demonstrated significant efforts to take corrective action towards meeting maintenance of
effort requirements. The term “states” here and in subsequent references to the College
Access Challenge Grant program include both states and territories.
41
20 U.S.C. § 1141(a).
42
20 U.S.C. §§ 1070a-21 – 1070a-28. Partnerships consist of one or more local
educational agencies, one or more degree-granting colleges, and not less than two other
community organizations or other entities such as businesses. Partnership grants must
support an early intervention component and may support a scholarship component.
Page 23 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
speeches at conferences, and speaking with state officials at other
venues.
Based on interviews with experts and organizations as well as our review
of Education documents and relevant literature, we identified three
approaches that could be used to incentivize states to improve college
affordability. While not mutually exclusive or exhaustive, our research
identified these possible approaches to incentivize state action: the
creation of new grant programs, informational activities, or changes to
federal student aid programs. Lessons learned from current or past
programs can be instructive in identifying potential advantages and
implementation considerations associated with these approaches.
Moreover, some experts and organizations cautioned that the approaches
could have cost implications for the federal government and
consequences for students.
A majority—18 out of 25—of experts and organizations we interviewed
cited federal grant programs, such as providing grants for state student
aid, as an approach that could be used to encourage state policies that
improve affordability.
43
The federal government uses grants to stimulate
or support a variety of activities at the state level, and our prior work has
shown that these grants represent a significant component of federal
spending.
44
Grants may have a matching component that requires the
grant recipient to provide funding along with the federal government.
Furthermore, grants have already been used in several higher education
programs, such as Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership
(LEAP), GEAR UP, College Access Challenge Grant, as well as in K-12
education through programs such as Title I funding and Race to the
Top.
45
43
In addition, two experts and organizations mentioned the federal government could
develop a new program to provide a free 2-year college option for students attending
public colleges as a way of improving affordability.
44
See GAO, Grants to State and Local Governments: An Overview of Federal Funding
Levels and Selected Challenges, GAO-12-1016 (Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2012)
for more information on grants to state and local governments.
45
To improve educational programs for schools with high concentrations of students from
low-income families, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended provides flexible funding to state and local educational agencies.
Several Potential
Approaches Were
Identified That Could Be
Used to Incentivize States
to Improve Affordability
Grants
Page 24 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
Grants can help spur innovation or state-level investment, and they can
be a useful tool when states do not have sufficient resources to fully
support a certain activity that has public benefits. Both competitive and
formula grants have been used to support current and past state-level
education programs. In K-12 education, there are several grant programs
to support state and local education efforts. For example, Education spent
almost $14 billion on Title I grants to school districts in fiscal year 2013,
and our prior work has found that funds have supported a variety of
initiatives related to instruction in selected school districts.
46
We have also
found that competitive Race to the Top grants have supported the
development of teacher evaluation systems in 12 states.
47
For higher
education programs, the LEAP program provided formula matching
grants to states to fund state need-based student aid grant programs prior
to fiscal year 2011. According to a 2006 report, the LEAP program
provided almost $66 million in federal funding, and states provided $840
million in funding, which exceeded the amount they were required to
match, for need-based grant programs in fiscal year 2005.
48
When the
LEAP program was discontinued in fiscal year 2011, all states had a
need-based grant program for students, up from only 28 when the
program was first authorized as the State Student Incentive Grants in
1972.
49
To help ensure that federal funding does not replace state
spending, some grant programs have maintenance of effort provisions,
which generally require that states maintain a certain level of funding.
According to Education officials, maintenance of effort provisions are one
lever the department has for certain grant programs it administers to
directly influence state spending. They stated, for example, that these
provisions in the College Access Challenge Grant program contributed
toward affordability goals because they incentivized some states to
maintain their funding commitment to higher education with a relatively
46
See GAO, Disadvantaged Students: School Districts Have Used Title I Funds Primarily
to Support Instruction, GAO-11-595 (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2011).
47
GAO, Race to the Top: States Implementing Teacher and Principal Evaluation Systems
despite Challenges, GAO-13-777 (Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2013).
48
Dushin, Jamie H. “Examining LEAP” (National Association of State Student Grant and
Aid Programs position paper, October 2006).
49
In its fiscal year 2011 budget request, Education proposed that the LEAP program be
eliminated because it had accomplished its objective of stimulating states to establish
need-based student grant programs and federal incentives in this area were no longer
required. See Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Summary and
Background Information (Washington, D.C.: February 2010).
Page 25 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
small investment from the federal government. Maintenance of effort
provisions were also used in Recovery Act funding for higher education,
and 16 out of 19 experts and organizations said that this funding helped
states alleviate budget cuts to higher education during the recession.
50
Of
this group, four attributed this trend specifically to the maintenance of
effort provision associated with the funding.
In creating grant programs, it is important to consider how the program
would be monitored and administered. Our prior grants management
work has identified several challenges associated with grants to state and
local governments, such as difficulty in ensuring grant funds are used
appropriately and lack of agency or recipient capacity.
51
There could be
additional challenges for grant programs with maintenance of effort
requirements. For example, Education officials also observed that states
may be more responsive to maintenance of effort provisions when larger
amounts of federal funding are associated with the provision, and funding
for the College Access Challenge Grant program was not large enough to
influence states to a significant degree. In addition, our prior work found
that maintenance of effort provisions have often been difficult to monitor,
and in 2009, we recommended that Education take further action to
enhance transparency associated with maintenance of effort provisions in
the Recovery Act.
52
Creating new grant programs would also have cost
implications for the federal government and could have consequences for
students. Three experts and organizations we spoke with cited limited
funding as a challenge associated with this option, and one organization
indicated that the matching requirements for grant programs could create
incentives for states to increase funding in some higher education
programs while reducing it in others, which could affect students.
50
There were some instances where given topics were not discussed at every interview
with experts and organizations.
51
Other challenges that we have previously identified with grants to state and local
governments include: effectively measuring grant performance, uncoordinated grant
program creation, and need for better collaboration. See GAO-12-1016.
52
See GAO, Temporary Assistance For Needy Families: State Maintenance of Effort
Requirements and Trends, GAO-12-713T (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2012), and GAO,
Recovery Act: Planned Efforts and Challenges in Evaluating Compliance with
Maintenance of Effort and Similar Provisions, GAO-10-247 (Washington, D.C.: November
30, 2009).
Page 26 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
Education proposed a new grant program in its fiscal year 2015 budget
request, the State Higher Education Performance Fund, as a possible
way to incentivize states. This competitive grant program would reward
states that have a strong record of investment and states that show a
commitment to increasing support for higher education. States would be
required to match federal grant funds, and resources would be allocated
to institutions based on performance formulas developed by states. This
program has not been authorized by law.
53
As mentioned previously, state
funding can be a significant source of revenue for public colleges, and
increased state support may have positive effects on affordability if public
colleges do not have to rely as much on revenue from tuition. However,
the ultimate effect of increased state support or maintenance of effort
requirements on college affordability depends on the extent to which
states or public colleges limit or refrain from increasing tuition.
Providing information for consumers or on best practices is another
approach to influence behaviors, thinking, or knowledge in certain areas.
Information can be provided through a variety of methods, including
public communication or training. Education has undertaken efforts to
disseminate information on affordability to current and prospective
students which could help them make decisions on which colleges—
including those that are state-supported—would provide a good value.
Education provides multiple sources of information, including the College
Navigator and College Scorecard websites, which help students compare
colleges based on various measures, such as costs.
54
Additionally,
Education is currently developing a college ratings system to provide
students with information on the affordability of individual colleges.
55
Depending on its design, a ratings system could encourage colleges to
improve on measures associated with affordability to garner a higher
53
Education officials said that while the Department has considered states’ capacity to
implement the proposed State Higher Education Performance Fund program, final
decisions, such as the criteria for state programs, have not been made pending
authorization of the program.
54
See http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/for College Navigator website and
http://collegecost.ed.gov/scorecard/index.aspx for the College Scorecard website.
Education also provides information on state spending via a website, including state
funding for higher education and aid to students. See
http://collegecost.ed.gov/statespending.aspx.
55
In its fiscal year 2015 budget request, Education requested $12 million to support the
development and refinement of the college ratings system.
Information
Page 27 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
rating. One consideration with implementing this initiative may be
concerns about protecting student privacy. For example, we reported in
2010 that states were unclear whether they could disclose data on
individual college graduates to assess program performance without
violating requirements related to student privacy.
56
In particular, student
privacy could be a concern when linking a student’s education record to
their employment records even if earnings and other employment
outcome data could help assess college affordability.
According to Education officials, the department has used training to
disseminate best practices to state grantees for GEAR UP programs. If
certain state policies are shown to be effective in promoting affordability,
the federal government may be able to use similar methods of providing
information to encourage the adoption of promising practices across
multiple states. However, as mentioned previously, various state policies
on college affordability show mixed results and others have only recently
been implemented, limiting the extent to which best practices may be
available.
Nearly half —11 out of 25—experts and organizations identified modifying
federal student aid programs as an option for improving affordability, but
modifications could also potentially have negative consequences for
students. Such changes could affect multiple parties, including public
colleges that must meet certain eligibility requirements before they can
receive and disburse federal funds to students. These suggestions
generally fell into two categories:
• Tie a public college’s eligibility to participate in federal student aid
programs or the level of federal student aid its students receive to
certain state activities or the state’s level of investment in higher
education. For example, Pell Grant funding could be increased for
students attending public institutions in states that achieve certain
goals related to investment in higher education.
• Create incentives for students to complete their degrees on time, for
example through changing Pell Grant eligibility requirements, which
56
See GAO, Postsecondary Education: Many States Collect Graduates’ Employment
Information, but Clearer Guidance on Student Privacy Requirements is Needed,
GAO-10-927 (Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2010) for more information on federal-
state information sharing in higher education.
Changes to Federal Student
Aid Programs
Page 28 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
Education officials said would require a change in statutory
authorization.
Education officials, experts, and organizations noted a number of
challenges associated with modifying federal student aid programs. One
such concern is inadvertently reducing students’ access to federal
financial aid. Because students are the ultimate recipients of financial aid,
restricting the aid flowing through states or colleges that do not meet
certain requirements could have the unintended consequence of reducing
aid for some students. Moreover, one organization indicated that this type
of policy change could face resistance from states or colleges. Similarly,
tying financial aid to students’ progress toward a degree could also have
negative effects on students. Education officials noted that changing the
definition of full-time enrollment from 12 to 15 credit hours per semester
could disadvantage students who have difficulty handling an increased
course load, such as students who need to work during the school year to
pay for college costs.
We provided a draft of the report to the Department of Education for
review and comment. Education provided technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate. We are sending a copy of this report to the
Secretary of Education. In addition, the report is available at no charge on
the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (617) 788-0534 or [email protected]. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this
report are listed in appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
Melissa Emrey-Arras
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security
Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 29 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
This report examines: (1) how state financial support and tuition have
changed at public colleges over the past decade, (2) how states’ higher
education policies have affected affordability, and (3) how the federal
government works with states to improve college affordability, and what
additional approaches are available for doing so.
In conducting this work, we analyzed trends in state funding for public
colleges, state student aid, and tuition using public sector data from
Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS),
National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), and the National
Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs (NASSGAP)
databases. We assessed the reliability of IPEDS, NPSAS, and NASSGAP
data by (1) performing electronic testing of required data elements, (2)
reviewing existing information about the data and the system that
produced them, and (3) interviewing the managing organizations where
additional information was needed. We determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. Data from all types of
public colleges were included in the analysis, including 2-year, 4-year,
and less than 2-year colleges. However, when analysis is provided by
college type, less than 2-year colleges are included only in the totals.
Private and for-profit colleges were excluded from this analysis. To
account for inflation, all monetary data are presented in school year 2011-
2012 constant dollars. In the report, we describe this inflation adjustment
as presenting data in constant 2012 dollars.
We also identified academic studies published in approximately the last 3
years (January 2011 through April 2014, when we conducted the
literature search) that are based on original research and discuss the
relationship between state-level higher education policies and college
affordability. We assessed the quality of these studies by evaluating their
research methods and determined that 23 studies were sufficiently
reliable for use in our study. In addition, we met with six academic
researchers who had recently published studies relevant to state higher
education policy or college affordability and were recognized as experts in
their field, as well as 19 organizations involved in higher education issues.
We also reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and agency
documents, including the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and
selected Education budget requests. Lastly, we reviewed Education
documents on current higher education programs and policy research on
tools the federal government has used to incentivize states.
We conducted this performance audit from February to December 2014 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Overview
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 30 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
To provide information on sources of college revenue and state support
per student we analyzed institutional data from the finance component of
IPEDS for fiscal years 2003 through 2012. We used the institutional
characteristics component of IPEDS to obtain data on published tuition
prices for school years 2002-2003 through 2011-2012. We chose these
time periods because they were the most recent available data at the time
of our analysis and cover a 10-year span. IPEDS gathers data from every
college, university, and technical and vocational institution that
participates in federal student aid programs and therefore the data cover
the entire population of interest for this study.
NPSAS data were used to analyze trends in the amount of need-based
grant aid compared to non-need-based grant aid and to show net tuition
levels over time. As NPSAS compiled data at 4-year intervals during the
time frame of the data used in our report, data were used for school years
2003-2004, 2007-2008, and 2011-2012 to present the most recent
available data. NPSAS compiles student-level records on financial aid
provided by the federal government, states, colleges, employers, and
non-profit organizations. It also captures student demographic and
enrollment data for a nationally representative sample of all
undergraduate students, regardless of enrollment type, who are enrolled
in Title IV eligible programs during the relevant school year. Student data
are collected through Web-based self-administered surveys and
computer assisted telephone interviews.
Because NPSAS data are based on probability samples, estimates are
formed using the appropriate estimation weights provided with each
survey’s data. Because each of these samples follows a probability
procedure based on random selection, they represent only one of a large
number of samples that could have been drawn. Since each sample
could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the
precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence
Data Analysis
IPEDS
NPSAS
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 31 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
interval (e.g., plus or minus 2.5 percentage points). This is the interval
that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the
samples we could have drawn. Unless otherwise noted, all estimates
cited in this report from NPSAS have 95 percent confidence intervals of
within +/- 8 percentage points for percentage estimates, and within +/- 8
percent of the estimate itself for other numerical estimates.
To provide state-by-state analysis of grant aid in appendix II, the
NASSGAP survey was used to show changes in the ratio of need-based
to non-need based aid for each state. The NASSGAP survey is
administered to states every year through an online instrument to collect
data on state-funded student financial aid programs administered during
the previous school year. NASSGAP reports that the data are collected
over a period of approximately 5 months. During this period, NASSGAP
follows up with any non-respondent state officials to ensure that data are
received from each state. In occasional instances where state officials do
not respond, NASSGAP creates expenditure estimates. Once the survey
is closed, the data are then checked for accuracy and consistency. We
downloaded the survey data directly from the NASSGAP website since its
online database is continually updated as errors and inconsistencies are
detected.
For this analysis we used data from school years 2003-2004 and 2011-
2012. This time period was chosen to provide the most recently available
data at the time of our analysis and to ensure data were consistent across
time periods, as the instrument was redesigned for the 2003-2004
collection cycle and earlier data may not be directly comparable. Since
data from each state are entered by a different representative, this
dataset has potential for reporting errors and inconsistency among states.
One such inconsistency is that not all states provided a breakout of aid
between graduate and undergraduate students, requiring NASSGAP to
estimate these data for some states. We therefore elected to present
combined graduate and undergraduate data in our state-by-state analysis
of grant aid in appendix II to avoid potential inaccuracies. With these
exceptions, limited use of the data was deemed appropriate for purposes
of our analysis.
To examine what is known about state higher education policies affecting
affordability, we conducted a literature search to identify relevant
academic studies. We searched various databases, including the
Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), ProQuest Education
NASSGAP
Literature Review
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 32 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
Journals, ProQuest Research Library, and EconLit, as well as specific
websites of the higher education organizations we interviewed. We
selected academic studies published in the last 3 years (2011 onward) to
obtain the most recent research on relevant programs and policies. We
also included only studies that were based on original research and that
discussed the relationship between college affordability and higher
education policies led by states and publicly-funded colleges. We typically
did not include dissertations or conference presentations. Of the 145
studies our literature search returned, 25 met our initial criteria for review.
We then assessed the quality of these studies by evaluating the methods
used in the research, as well as any limitations, and verified this
assessment through a secondary review. Ultimately, we determined that
23 studies were sufficiently reliable for use in our study. We reviewed the
findings of these studies and presented the points most relevant to our
report, as appropriate.
To obtain a range of perspectives on all three of our research objectives,
we conducted semi-structured interviews with a non-probability sample of
25 experts and organizations. We selected these experts and
organizations based on their recognition in the higher education field,
relevance of published work, and professional affiliations with groups
applicable to our study. Specifically, we selected experts and
organizations that met at least one of the following criteria: 1) published
recent and relevant empirical work or data analysis of higher education
finance issues, 2) are leaders of active higher education or state policy
associations, 3) are implementers or sponsors of policies or experiments
related to college affordability, or 4) were recommended by Education. In
addition to these primary criteria, we also considered whether the experts
or organizations were recommended by other parties, represented a
unique perspective on the topic, or served as a Congressional witness at
hearings on college affordability in recent years. We prioritized experts
and organizations that met multiple criteria.
1
Of this group, 19 were
organizations involved in higher education issues, including those that
that represent public colleges, states, or students, and others that
sponsor or conduct research on higher education finances. We also met
with six academic researchers who recently published studies relevant to
1
There were two organizations we interviewed that only met one secondary criterion
because they represented students, a group that was not represented by other
organizations and experts we interviewed.
Interviews of Experts and
Organizations
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 33 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
our research objectives. The perspectives of these experts and
organizations cannot be generalized to represent the views of all
stakeholders involved in college affordability issues; however, they offer
perspectives from diverse and wide-reaching areas of the higher
education community.
For our third objective, we examined how the federal government
collaborates with states on affordability issues and potential approaches
to incentivize states to improve college affordability. First, we reviewed
information on Education’s higher education programs, literature on
higher education funding, and interviewed Education officials, academic
experts, and organizations to understand the current relationship between
the federal government and states on higher education issues. We also
reviewed Education’s FY 2013 Annual Performance Report and FY2015
Annual Performance Plan and fiscal year 2015 budget documents to
identify the agency’s goals and proposals related to college affordability.
We then examined which general mechanisms are available to the
federal government to incentivize states by reviewing a widely recognized
public administration framework used in prior GAO analyses: The Tools of
Government: A Guide to the New Governance.
2
Based on this analysis
and our review of proposed education programs, perspectives from
experts and organizations, and relevant GAO work on these topics, we
identified the approaches that were most applicable to our research
objective and their potential advantages and implementation
considerations.
2
Lester Salamon, ed., The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2002).
Identification of
Approaches for
Incentivizing States
Appendix II: Trends in State Grant Aid to
Students and Sources of Revenue for Public
Colleges
Page 34 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
The map below illustrates how states have shifted toward awarding either
more need-based grant aid or less by depicting the percentage-point
change in need-based aid between school years 2003-2004 and 2011-
2012. Among the states with the largest percentage-point increase in
need-based aid were Massachusetts, Nevada, and Michigan while those
with the largest decrease were Wyoming, Utah, and New Hampshire.
Figure 7: State-by-State Shifts in Need-Based Aid, from School Years 2003-2004 through 2011-2012
Note: Figures include grant aid that states provide to both graduate and undergraduate students.
To provide more context on trends in revenue for public colleges over
time, the following table shows total public college revenue as well as
revenue from each source from fiscal year 2003 through 2012.
Appendix II: Trends in State Grant Aid to
Students and Sources of Revenue for Public
Colleges
Appendix II: Trends in State Grant Aid to
Students and Sources of Revenue for Public
Colleges
Page 35 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
Table 3: Public College Revenue by Source in 2012 Constant Dollars from Fiscal Years 2003 through 2012
(Dollars in Billions)
Fiscal year Tuition Local State Federal Other Total
2003 42.5 16.9 80.0 39.1 74.7 253.1
2004 47.4 17.4 77.7 41.2 78.3 262.0
2005 50.6 16.8 77.0 41.8 82.1 268.4
2006 52.4 16.8 78.9 40.6 82.5 271.1
2007 54.4 17.5 82.6 40.2 90.7 285.5
2008 56.6 17.8 85.8 40.8 78.2 279.2
2009 60.8 18.7 81.8 43.9 76.6 281.7
2010 68.0 18.3 77.6 54.6 87.5 306.1
2011 72.9 18.5 77.1 58.5 93.2 320.3
2012 76.3 21.0 70.6 55.0 82.1 305.0
Source: GAO analysis of Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) finance component data. | GAO-15-151
Notes: “Tuition” includes revenues from all tuition and fees assessed against students, net of refunds
and discounts and allowances, for educational purposes. “Local” sources refer to funds provided and
grants made by local government. “State” sources refer to funds received by colleges directly from a
state legislature or through grants and contracts from state government agencies. “Federal” sources
include appropriations for meeting current operating expenses, grants, contracts, and federal grant
aid to students such as Pell Grants. “Other” sources include private gifts, grants and contracts; sales
and services of educational activities; auxiliary enterprises; hospital revenues.
Appendix III: Bibliography
Page 36 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
Baldassare, Mark, Dean Bonner, Sonja Petek, and Jui
Shrestha.”Californians and Higher Education. PPIC Statewide Survey.”
(San Francisco, Calif.: Public Policy Institute of California, 2011).
Baum, Sandy, Kathleen Little, Jennifer Ma, and Anne Sturtevant.
“Simplifying Student Aid: What It Would Mean for States.” (New York,
New York: College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, 2012).
Chatman, Steve. “Wealth, Cost, and the Undergraduate Student
Experience at Large Public Research Universities.” (Berkeley, Calif:
Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California at
Berkeley, 2011).
Domina, Thurston. “Does Merit Aid Program Design Matter? A Cross-
Cohort Analysis.” Research in Higher Education, vol. 55, no. 1 (2014):1–
26.
Dougherty, Kevin J., Rebecca S. Natow, and Blanca E. Vega. “Popular
but Unstable: Explaining Why State Performance Funding Systems in the
US Often Do Not Persist.” Teachers College Record, vol. 114, no. 3
(2012): 1-41.
Fethke, Gary.”A Low-Subsidy Problem in Public Higher Education.”
Economics of Education Review, vol. 30, no. 4 (2011): 617–626.
Goldrick-Rab, Sara and Nancy Kendall. “Redefining College Affordability:
Securing America’s Future with a Free Two Year College Option.”
(Madison, Wisconsin: The Education Optimists, 2014).
Hemelt, Steven W. and Dave E. Marcotte. “The Impact of Tuition
Increases on Enrollment at Public Colleges and Universities.” Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 33, no. 4 (2011): 435–457.
Hillman, Nicholas W., David A. Tandberg, and Alisa Hicklin-Fryar.
“Evaluating the Impacts of ‘New’ Performance Funding in Higher
Education.” Forthcoming.
Jacobs, Christine, and Sarah Whitfield. “Beyond Need and Merit:
Strengthening State Grant Programs.” (Washington, D.C.: Brookings
Institution, 2012).
Appendix III: Bibliography
Appendix III: Bibliography
Page 37 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
Jones, Jessika. “College Costs and Family Income: The Affordability
Issue at UC and CSU.” (Sacramento, Calif.: California Postsecondary
Education Commission, Report 11-02, 2011).
Mendoza, Pilar and Jesse P. Mendez. “The Oklahoma’s Promise
Program: A National Model to Promote College Persistence.” Journal of
College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, vol. 14, no. 3
(2013): 397-421.
O’Brien, Colleen. “Expanding Access and Opportunity: The Washington
State Achievers Scholarship.” (Washington, D.C.: Pell Institute for the
Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, 2011).
Patel, Reshma, Lashawn Richburg-Hayes, Elijah de la Campa, and
Timothy Rudd. “Performance-Based Scholarships: What Have we
Learned? Interim Findings from the PBS Demonstration.” (New York,
New York: MDRC, 2013).
Poliakoff, Michael, and Armand Alacbay. “Best Laid Plans: The Unfulfilled
Promise of Public Higher Education in California.” (Washington, D.C.:
American Council of Trustees and Alumni, 2012).
Rae, Brian. “2013 Alaska Performance Scholarship Outcomes Report.”
(Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education,
2013).
Sanford, Thomas and James M. Hunter.”Impact of Performance-funding
on Retention and Graduation Rates.” Education Policy Analysis Archives,
vol. 19, no. 33 (2011).
Scott-Clayton, Judith. “On Money and Motivation: A Quasi-Experimental
Analysis of Financial Incentives for College Achievement.”The Journal of
Human Resources, vol. 46, no. 3 (2011): 614-646.
Serna, Gabriel R. and Gretchen Harris. “Higher Education Expenditures
and State Balanced Budget Requirements: Is There a Relationship?”
Journal of Education Finance, vol. 39, no. 3 (2014): 175-202.
Tandberg, David A. and Nicholas W. Hillman. “State Higher Education
Performance Funding: Data, Outcomes, and Policy Implications.” Journal
of Education Finance, vol. 39, no. 3 (2014): 222-243.
Appendix III: Bibliography
Page 38 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
Titus, Marvin A. and Brian Pusser. “ States’ Potential Enrollment of Adult
Students: A Stochastic Frontier Analysis.” Research in Higher Education,
vol. 52, no. 6 (2011):555–571.
Welbeck, Rashida, John Diamond, Alexander Mayer, and Lashawn
Richburg-Hayes. “Piecing Together the College Affordability Puzzle:
Student Characteristics and Patterns of (Un)Affordability.” (New York,
New York: MDRC, 2014).
Zhang, Liang, Shouping Hu and Victor Sensenig. “The Effect of Florida’s
Bright Futures Program on College Enrollment and Degree Production:
An Aggregated-Level Analysis.” Research in Higher Education, vol. 54
(2013): 746–764.
Appendix IV: Related GAO Products
Page 39 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
Federal Student Loans: Impact of Loan Limit Increases on College Prices
Is Difficult to Discern. GAO-14-7. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2014.
Community Colleges: New Federal Research Center May Enhance
Current Understanding of Developmental Education. GAO-13-656.
Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2013.
Higher Education: Improved Tax Information Could Help Families Pay for
College. GAO-12-560. Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2012.
Postsecondary Education: Financial Trends in Public and Private
Nonprofit Institutions. GAO-12-179. Washington, D.C.: January 26, 2012.
Federal Student Loans: Patterns in Tuition, Enrollment, and Federal
Stafford Loan Borrowing Up to the 2007-08 Loan Limit Increase.
GAO-11-470R. Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2011.
Postsecondary Education: Many States Collect Graduates’ Employment
Information, but Clearer Guidance on Student Privacy Requirements Is
Needed. GAO-10-927. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2010.
Recovery Act: Planned Efforts and Challenges in Evaluating Compliance
with Maintenance of Effort and Similar Provisions. GAO-10-247.
Washington, D.C.: November 30, 2009.
Federal Student Aid: Highlights of a Study Group on Simplifying the Free
Application for Federal Student Aid. GAO-10-29. Washington, D.C.: Oct
29, 2009.
Higher Education: Tuition Continues to Rise, but Patterns Vary by
Institution Type, Enrollment, and Educational Expenditures. GAO-08-245.
Washington, D.C.: November 28, 2007.
Appendix IV: Related GAO Products
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments
Page 40 GAO-15-151 State Higher Education Policies
Melissa Emrey-Arras, Director, (617) 788-0534 or [email protected]
In addition to the contact named above, Meeta Engle (Assistant Director),
Charline Gay, Amy Moran Lowe, Jean McSween, John Mingus, Katherine
Morris, Amrita Sen, and Jack Wang made significant contributions to this
report. Also contributing to this report were James Bennett, Deborah
Bland, Jessica Botsford, David Chrisinger, Peter del Toro, Ashley McCall,
Sheila McCoy, Susan Offutt, Michelle Sager, Stephen Sanford, Anjali
Tekchandani, and Greg Whitney.
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Staff
Acknowledgments
(131258)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions.
GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday
afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony,
and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted
products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website,
http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.
Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts .
Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.
Contact:
Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: f[email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, [email protected], (202) 512-
4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
7125, Washington, DC 20548
Chuck Young, Managing Director, y[email protected], (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548
GAO’s Mission
Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony
Order by Phone
Connect with GAO
To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs
Congressional
Relations
Public Affairs
Please Print on Recycled Paper.
