document resume he 020 311document resume ed 282 487 he 020 311 author kirschner, alan h.; thrift,...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 282 487 HE 020 311

AUTHOR Kirschner, Alan H.; Thrift, Julianne StillTITLE Access to College: The Impact of Federal Financial

Aid Policies at Private Historically BlackColleges.

INSTITUTION National Inst. of Independent Colleges andUniversities, Washington, DC.; United Negro CollegeFund, Inc., New York, N.Y.

SPONS AGENCY EXXON Education Foundation, New York, N.Y.; FordFoundation, New York, N.Y.; Lilly Endowment, Inc.,Indianapolis, Ind.

PUB DATE 87NOTE MW,AVAILABLE FROM United Negro College Fund, 500 East 62nd Street, New

York, NY 10021 or National Institute of IndependentColleges and Universities, 122 C Street, NW, Suite750, Washington, DC 20001 ($10.00).

PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Access to Education; *Black Colleges; Dependents;

Family Income; *Federal Aid; *Financial Policy;Grants; Higher Education; Low Income Groups; ParentFinancial Contribution; *Private Colleges; PublicPolicy; State Aid; Student Employment; *StudentFinancial Aid; Student Loan Programs; UndergraduateStudents

IDENTIFIERS Debt (Financial)

ABSTRACTWays that private black college undergraduates and

other private college Itudents finance their education are compared,based on data for 2,380 student aid recipients at 38 colleges.Historically black college (HBC) students who received aid, comparedwith non-HBC students: (1) had fewer family resources to assist them;(2) earned less during the summer for college costs; (3) faced largedebt burdens; (4) were more likely to reside in states offeringrelatively small amounts of grant aid to private college students;and (5) received very little in institutional student assistance.Data for 1983-1984 are presented on the distribution of federal aidamong full-time dependent aid recipients at private HBCs and atprivate colleges nationally. The following categories of aid arecovered: two types of federal grants; four types of institutionalgrants; three types of state grants; external yrants; three types offederal loans; long-term institutional loans; external loans; federalani state work-study and school assistantships; and student andfanny contributions. This information is also broken down forstudents whose parents earn less than $10,000. Information on theresearch methodology and a list of participating colleges areappended. (SW)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

1

tlw impactof frfedéralfiftancialaid policies

rivatehistoricallylack

colleges"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE MISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Unjc,c Ns1

27..r

TO ME EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

U.S. DEPANTIMINT OP EDUCATIONMice of Eduntionel Research and IEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMA

CENTER (ERIC)

Giesdocument has Wen reproducedreceived from the minion or eqpanizaoriginating it.

0 Miner changes have been made to imrepioductien quality.

Paints el view or opinions stated in thisment de net necessarily representOENI position er

*

Copyright() 1987 by: The National Institute of Inde-pendent Colleges and Universities and The UnitedNegro College Fund, Inc.

Funding for this study was provided by The ExxonEducation Foundation, The Ford Foundation andThe Lilly Endowment, Inc.

Additional copies of Access to College are available for$10.00 from:

Research DepartmentUnited Negro College Fund, Inc.500 East 62nd StreetNew York, NY 10021

The National Institute of IndependentColleges and Universities

122 C Street, N.W., Suite 750Washington, DC 20001

3

access to college:the impactof federalfinancialaid policiesat privatehistoricallyblackcolleges

Alan H. KirschnerUnited Negro College Fund, Inc.

Julianne Still ThriftNational Institute of Independent

Colleges and Universities

Unless the national investmentin the education of minorityyouth is increased, the chanceof their reaching their potentialwill be limited. We all willlose in the process.

From the conclusionof Access to College

Table of Contents

page

Executive Summary

Purpose of This Study

Background

Introduction: The Problem of Access

Profile of Aid Recipients

Role of the Family

4

5

6

7

8

14

Trends for Students from Families withIncomes Less than $10,000 16

Shifts in Student Aid, 1979-1980 and1984-1985

Conclusions

Appendix ATechnical Report

Appendix BSurvey Participants

25

28

30

31

6

Executive Summary

While the high school graduation rate forblacks has been increasing over the pastdecade, the proportion of blacks attendingcollege lags significantly behind the atten-dance rate of their white counterparts. Onepossible explanation for this disparity is thedifference between the resources that blackfamilies have available to fund college ex-penses and the availability of sufficient grantassistance to bridge the gap between familyresources and the cost of attendance.

Historically black colleges in the private sec-tor have struggled to keep their tuitions lowso that students from a broad range of socio-economic backgrounds can attend. These col-leges serve a large proportion of students whoneed assistance in paying for college. In spiteof these colleges' relatively low tuitioncharges, in 1983-84 more than 80 percent ofthe full-time undergraduatesalmost 50,000studentsdepended on one or more formsof federal student aid to help meet collegecosts.

The families' and students' efforts to meetcollege costs are frustrated because theaverage family size is large (averaging 4.6family members), and more than one-thirdof the federal aid recipients have at least onesibling in college. In 1983-84, the medianfamily income of these aid recipients was$10,733, approximately one-third of the me-dian family income for all families with a childin college.

During the past five years, students atten-ding historically black colleges (HBCs) haveincreasingly relied on loans to bridge the gapbetween the declining worth of grant fundsand rising costs. Between 1979-80 and 1984-85,

4

the purchasing power of the average Pellgrant received by students attending indepen-dent HBCs declined 37.3 percent. During thesame period, the proportion of student aidrecipients dependent on loans expandedfrom what had been a consistent base of fourto five percent to almost half (46 percent).

Researchers do not know the precisereasons for the decline in the proportion ofblack high school graduates attending col-leges during the eafly 1980s, but this studydearly shows that the "real cost" of attendingcollege increased for those needy students at-tending the colleges that historically haveserved a large proportion of America's blackyouth. Compared with students attendingother colleges, student aid recipients attend-ing historically black colleges:

1. Have fewer family resources to assist them.

2 . Earn less during the summer to use foreducational expenses.

3 . Face large debt burdens unprecedented inthe history of higher education.

4 . Are more likely to reside in states offeringrelatively small amounts of grant assistanceto students attending private colleges.

5 . Receive very little in institutional studentassistance.

As early as the founding of the Pell Grantprogram (originally called the Basic Educa-tional Opportunity Grant program) in 1972,policymakers began calling for better andmore precise data on how student financialassistance was distributed among students.During the reauthorization of the HigherEducation Act in 1976, it became evident thatcolleges and universities (and the groups thatrepresent them) must provide that informa-tion. The National Institute of IndependentColleges and Universities (NIICU) was found-ed in 1978 and began to address that need.

NIICU deve1op,x1 the first Student AidRecipient Data Bank (SARD) in 1978-79 tostudy the distribution of student financial aidamong students attending independent col-leges and universities. Subsequent data bankshave provided information on student aidrecipients in the independent sector in1979-80, 1981-82, and 1983-84. The public sec-tor joined this effort in 1981-82, and thecongressionally-chartered National Commis-sion on Student Financial Assistance con-tracted with NIICU to provide s)milar data onproprietary schools in 1983. All of these databanks provide natilnal data, but they do notprovide data on particular types of collegeswithin the sectors, such as women's collegesor historically black colleges.

By 1984, cuts in federal student financialassistance seemed to be disproportionatelyhurting needy students attending collegeswith moderate and high tuitions. As a result,the independent colleges enrolling largenumbers of students from low-incomefamilies appeared to be suffering most fromthe cuts.

Purpose of This Study

The United Negro College Fund (UNCF),a consortium of forty-three independent,historically black colleges and universities,and NIICU were concerned about theevidence of erosion in the ability of low-income students to attend independent col-leges and universities.

Unfortunately, the Student Aid RecipientData Bank, wHch previously had providedconcrete evidence to analyze changes in stu-dent aid policy and funding levels, was notdesigned to answer questions about the im-pact of changes in student aid funding on col-leges with high concentrations of low-incomestudents. With the moral and financial back-ing of the Exxon Education Foundation, theLilly Endowment, and the Ford Foundation,UNCF and NIICU began to create a StudentAid Recipient Data Bank for the historicallyblack independent colleges and universities.

To provide an analysis of student aid trendsover time and to provide greater detail andunderstanding of the oackgrounds ofstudents attending independent HBCs, thestudy also relied on data collected by theUnited Negro College Fund and publishedannually for more than twenty years. UNCF'sAnnual Statistical Report is the most com-prehensive data base available on trends atthe HBCs.

Thirty-eight colleges and universities par-ticipated in the study, producing a data bankwith 2,380 student aid records. A full descrip-tion of the procedures used in the samplingand data collection can be found in Appen-dix A. Appendix B lists the 38 participatingcoP eges.

5

8

Background

There are fifty-seven private, historicallyblack colleges and universities in America to-day, enrolling more than 62,000 students.Most of these institutions are more than acentury old and have long and rich traditionsin the black community. Most of today's blackprofessionals received their degrees athistorically black colleges. Indeed, blacks whohave achieved middle- and upper-class statushave been substantially affected by these in-stitutions, either through parents or otherclose relatives who attended or by their ownattendance. When we look at America's blackleadershipthe Andrew Youngs, the JesseJacksons, the Barbara Jordans, the ThurgoodMarsha Ilswe see that virtually all are prod-ucts of historically black colleges, as wasMartin Luther King, Jr.

While the independent HBCs educatestudents from a broad range of family incomebackgrounds, including families earning morethan $50,000 annually, the primary missionof these colleges throughout their historieshas been to elevate disadvantaged youth toproductive and creative citizenship. Most oftheir students come from low-incomefamilies. Most are the first in their familiesto attend college, although in recent yearssignificantly larger numbers of second andthird generation children of alumni are atten-ding these colleges. Many of the students,because of financial circumstances,geographical location, or inadequate highschool preparation, would not have attend-ed college at all if not for the existence of theseinstitutions.

66 ... the primary mission ofthese colleges throughouttheir histories has been toelevate disadvantaged youthto productive and creativecitizenship. 99

6

Few colleges assume as their primary mis-sion the educating of low-income students.Yet providing access to education to break thepoverty cycle is a national necessity.Historicady black colleges do the job ofeducating students who otherwise might nothave the opportunity to attend college.

Recent studies of black student progressdiscovered that students in black collegesshow greater intellectual and academicgrowth than their black counterparts inpredominantly white colleges.' The attention,acceptance, and friendship extended tostudents in college play a critical role in pro-moting intellectual growth. Other studiesshow that potential, as measured by standar-dized tests, is maximized for students inpredominantly black colleges.2 In theseschools, black studeuts gain skills and con-fidence that assist their integration intosociety.

To assure student access to these institu-tions and in recognition of the low-incomebackgrounds of their students, privatehistorically black colleges have kept their tui-tions at approximately two-thirds of the na-tional average for private colleges. While tui-tion charges remain low, the actual cost ofeducating each student remains as high as atother schools. In fact, most historically blackcolleges give special attention and services tostudents whose college preparation is weak.When taking into account the added costthese colleges assume for remedial courses,academic counseling, tutorini and specialtesting, the average cost for educatingstudents ati ending 1-1BCs often is greater thanfor other students.

Introduction:The Problemof Access

In addition, historically black colleges areunable to fall back on sizeable endowmentsto compensate for their lower tuitions. Theaverage endowment per student at privateHBCs is less than half the average for privatecolleges nationally.

During the past five years, with student aidprograms failing to keep pace with inflation,it has become increasingly difficult for low-income and minority students to attend in-dependent colleges. Between 1979-80 and1984-85, students attending independentHBCs faced a decline cf 37.3 percent in thepurchasing power of Pell Grants, the largestfederal grant program. The value of th2 se-cond latgest grant program, the Supplemen-tal Educational Opportunity Grant (SEOG),declined 30.4 percent relative to inflation dur-ing the same period.

The problem of access to college is a grow-ing national concern. For example, the highschool graduation rates for minorities still lagbehind those of their white counterparts inspite of recent improvements. As late as 1980,less than 20 percent of the white 18-to-24-year-old population were high school drop-outs, compared with almost 30 percent ofblacks. Moreover, the growing proportion ofminorities and low-income persons in thecollege-age population increases the urgen-cy of assuring higher education oppor-tunities. Unless present trends are reversed,we will be a significantly less educated societyby the year 2000 than we are now.

This study focuses on full-time under-graduates who attend independent historical-ly black colleges. Emphasis is given to thosestuC- nts whose annual family income is les:than 10,000.

7

k2 1 0

Profile of AidRecivients

Percentage Receiving aidDuring 1983-84, four of every five under-graduate students (8(14 percent) attending in-dependent HBCs received one or more formsof federal student assistance: either grants,loans, or work opportunities. At independentcolleges nationally, 59.5 percent of under-graduates received federal student aid.

The great majority of aid recipients at in-dependent HBCs attended college on a full-time basis. In fact, more than 98 percent ofthe 46,792 undergraduate aid recipients werefull-time students.

More than four out of five (83.8 percent) full-time undergraduate students attending privateHBCs received federal fmancial assistance,compared with sc.7...-.nty percent of full-timeprivate college undergraduates nationally. Onein five (20.9 percent) part-time undergraduatesat private HBCs received feieral aid, comparedwith one-tenth (9.8 perce tt) at private collegesnationally. (See Tables 1 and 2.)

8

Of those students at private HI3Cs whoreceive financial aid, three-fourths are depen-dent on their parents to meet some portionof their college expenses, while one-fourth ofaid recipients are classified as independent.The average family size is 4.6 and more thanone-third (35 percent) of the federal aid reci-pients attending private HBCs have at leastone sibling attending college.

Family IncomeBecause three-fourths of all federal aid reci-pients attending private HBCs are full-timeundergraduates who are dependent on theirparents, the remainder of this study will focuson these students. Their average family in-come is $i2,950, or 56 percent of the $23,293fairly income of dependent aid recipients inprivate colleges nationally. But the typical or

11

TABLE 1

DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL AID RECIPIENTS BY REGISTRATION LEVEL ANDDEPENDENCY STATUS AT INDEPENDENT HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGESAND UNIVERSITIES, 1983-84

Undergraduates Full-TimeFederal Recipients

46,132Percentage

95.7%Dependent 35,542 73.7Independent 10,950 22.0

Part-Time 660 1.4Dependent 295 0.6Independent 365 0.8

Total 46,792 97.1

Graduate Students Full-Tirne 1,398 2.9Dependent 543 1.1Independent 855 1.8

Part-Time 15 0.0Dependent 0 0.0Independent 15 0.0

Total 1,413 2.9

Grand Total 48,205 100.0%Source: UNCF/NIICU Student Aid Recipient Data Bank.

TABLE 2

ENROLLMENT AND FEDERAL AID RECIPIENTS AT INDEPENDENT HISTORICALLYBLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, 1983-84

Allrtderal

Recipients Percentage

Undergraduates Full-Time 55,070 46,132 83.8%Part-Time 3,155 660 20.9Total 58,225 46,792 80.4

Gradua:es Full-Time 4,609 1,398 30.3Part-Time 2,660 15 0.6Total 7,269 1,413 19.4

Grand Total 67,122* 48,205 71.8%

Includes unclassified not shown above

Scrirce: Enrollment data from the Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Recipient data from theUNCHNIICU Student Aid Recipient Data Bank.

9

1 2

The average family income for private HBC aid recipientsis $12,950, or 56 percent of the $23,293 average for aidrecipients at private colleges nationally.

CHART 1

Parental Income

20.000

18.000

16.000

14.000

12.000

10.000

8000

6000

4000

2000

(Dollars)

10.831

FederalMean

AidIncome

12.608

Recipientsby Program

12.811

14,191 14.656

IP

PellGrant

Source UNCFNIICU Student AidRecipient Data Bank

Supplemental College Work- National GuaranteedEducational Study Direct StudentOpportunity Student LoanGrant Loan

Type of Aid

10

1 3

median income of these families is only$10,733.

The average family income of federal aidrecipients by type of program further in-dicates the limited resources available tofamilies of private HBC students. Pell Grantrecipients constitute the largest share offederal aid recipients at private HECs, withalmost nine out of ten (87.5 percent) receiv-ing Pell Grants. Their average family incomewas $10,831. The average family income forSEOG recipients was $12,608 and for CollegeWork-Study (CWS) students, $12,811. Forstudents receiving loans, family income forGuaranteed Student Loan (GSL) recipientsaveraged $14,656 and for National Direct Stu-dent Loans (NDSL) recipients, $14,191. AsChart 1 indicates, participants in the Pell andSEOG programs have lower average paren-tal incomes than in either College Work-Study or the loan programs (NDSL or GSL).This shows that the distribution of studentaid at private HBC makes sensethe mostneedy get more grants and the less needyhave more loans.

Student AspirationsDespite these financial limitations, studentsat private HBCs are highly motivated. Morethan three-fourths (776 percent) aspire to earngraduate or professional degrees, comparedwith approximately half (53.6 perLent) of allcollege freshmen nationally. Almost one-third(30.7 percent) of private HBC freshmen areranked in the upper fifth of their high schoolclass and three-fourths (75.6 percent) workpart-time while in college. Careers attractingthe strongest interest among freshmen enter-ing private HBCs in 1985 are business (24.1percent), engineering (13.5 percent), medicine

(9.1 percent), computer programming (8.3percent), and law (8.3 percent).3

Family Education LevelsWhile the students aspire to graduate andprofessional study, they are twice as likely astheir peers at private colleges nationally tohave parents who did not complete grammarschool or high school. More than one-fifth(21.3 percent) of private HBC freshmen havefathers who never graduated from highschool, compared with roughly one-tenth offreshmen at private colleges nationally. Four-teen percent of private HBC freshmen havemothers who did not complete high school,compared to eight percent nationally.'

SummaryThis study of the impact of federal financialaid policies focuses attention on a group ofstudents with high aspirations and verylimited resources. Even though students fit-ting this description are scattered throughoutpostsecondary education, they are concen-trated in historically black independent col-leges and universities.

Like other students who depend on stu-dent financial aid to attend college, thesestudents pay for their college expenses bycombining one or more forms of grants,loans, and work income with contributionsfrom themselves and their parents. Table 3shows the importance of these and otherparts of student aid packages. For each typeof aid the average amount listed is the averageamount for all recipients of this particulartype of aid, and the percentage of costscovered is the average percentage for all reci-pients of that particular form of aid.

1 4

TABLE 3111DISTRIBUTION OF

FULL-TIME UNDERGRADUATE DEPENDENT FEDERAL AIDAND UNIVERSITIES, AND AT PRIVATE COLLEGES

Type of Aidor Resource

AverageAmount

PercentageReceivingThis Form

of Aid

Percentageof CostsCovered

PrivateBlack

Colleges

PrivateCollegesNationally

PrivateBlack

Colleges


PrivateBlack

Colleges

PrivateColleges

Nationally

GRANTS

FederalPell $1,483 $1,181 87.8% 43.6% 24.8% 13.5%SEOG 832 833 53.5 23.2 13.9 9.5Other

institutional1,232 1,366 0.8 0.3 20.6 15.6

Need-Based 1,434 1,882 12.3 47.9 24.0 21.5Merit-Based 997 1,287 6.1 16.5 16.7 14.7Remissions 1,421 3,069 1.4 0.8 23.8 35.0Fellowships 2,300 844 0.0 0.2 38.5 9.6

StateNeed-Based

(SSIG) 954 1,543 23.9 41.5 16.0 17.6Entitlement 732 1,047 18.8 6.0 12.3 11.9Merit-Based 526 608 0.7 4.0 8.8 6.9

ExternalGrants 945 1,073 9.6 9.3 15.8 12.2

Total Grants 12,631 3,183 96.9 87.6 44.1 36.3

SELF-HELP

LOANS

FederalGSL 2,015 2,262 38.7 74.1 33.8 25.8NDSL 797 1,008 18.1 29.1 13.4 1'1.5ALAS 0.0 2,111 0.0 0.2 0.0 24.1Other 464 1,154 0.4 0.6 7.8 13.2

InstitutionalLong-Term 1,096 972 3.0 2.5 18.4 11.1

ExternalLoans 1,712 1,323 0.6 0.3 28.7 15.1

Total Loans 1,807 2,345 53.9 85.4 30.3 26.8

12

15

FINANCIAL AID AMONGRECIPIENTS AT PRIVATE HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGESAND UNIVERSITIES NATIONALLY, 1983-1984


AverageAmount


of Aid


PrivateBlack

Colleges

PrivateColleges

Nationally

PrivateBlack

Colleges


PrivateBlack

Colleges


WORK

FederalCWS $1,044 $1,138 57.9% 38.3% 17.5% 13.0%

InstitutionalAssistantship 0.0 2,460 0.0 0.2 0.0 28.1Work-Study 1,065 1,338 2.5 10.6 17.8 15.3

StateWork-Study 302 - 0.1 - 5.1 -

Total Work 1,090 1,254 59.8 48.6 18.3 14.3

CONTRIBUTIONS

From Student 548 1,117 96.3 93.3 9.2 12.7From Family 338 1,894 89.2 88.7 5.7 21.6

Total Contributions 859 2,892 96.7 94.1 14.4 33.0

Total Self-Help 2,460 5,343 99.8 99.9 41.2 61.0

OTHER AID

Federal 1,525 1,864 3.2 2.1 25.5 21.3Institutional 1,119 1,158 4.9 6.2 18.7 13.2State 771 1,324 7.5 1.4 12.9 15.1

Total Other Aid 1,004 1,171 10.1 10.6 16.8 13.4

BALANCES

Total Expenses $5,971 $8,766 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%Total Resources 5,100 8,160 100.0 100.0 85.4 93.1Remaining Need - 871 - 606 100.0 100.0 - 14.6 - 6.9

Source: UNCF/NHCU Student Aid Recipient Data Bank

13

1 6

Role of the Family

Given the low average family incomelevels of HBC aid recipients, it is not surpris-ing to find that many of their families live ator below federal poverty levels. According tothe Bureau of Labor Statistics, a $9,862 incomefor a family of four constituted federallyrecognized poverty in 1982, the tax year for1983-84 student financial aid data. Forty-twopercent of all federal aid recipients attendingprivate HBCs in 1983-84 came from familiesliving below the poverty level.

Because of the low incomes of aid recipientfamilies, the expected parental contribution(EPC) toward college costs is low. The EPCis an index that tells colleges and lending in-stitutions how much parents can be expectedto contribute to education. The expectedparental contribution depends on a formulabased on the parents' income and assets. Ifa student qualifies for aid, the EPC is thesame whether a student attends a high-pricedprivate university or a low-priced public col-lege. Often, the calculated EPC is consider-ably higher than the family itself thinks it canafford to pay.

At private colleges nationally, the averageexpected parental contribution for federal aidrecipients is $1,894, almost six times the $338average for private HBC aid recipients. Table4 shows the level of parental contribution byincome categories.

For families with annual incomes of lessthan $10,000, the average parental contribu-tion for private HBC aid recipients is $34, lessthan one-tenth the $447 average for privatecollege undergraduate aid recipients national-ly from the same income category. A possi-ble explanation is that private HBC aid reci-pients from the under-$10,000 income rangewere more likely to have siblings in college

14

than their national counterparts, and weremore likely to come from the lower end of theunder-$10,000 income range. Almost 30 per-cent of federal aid recipients attending privateblack colleges come from families with in-comes of less than $6,000, compared with tenpercent of recipients at private colleges na-tionally (see Chart 2). In addition, familiesof students attending private HBCs are lesslikely than their counterparts nationally tohave assets (home equity, small businesses,farms, etc.).

Student contributions nationally for all aidrecipients averaged $1,11Z more than twicethe $548 average for private HBC students.Since student contributions primarily comefrom summer earnings, the high unemploy-ment rate among black youth could possiblyexplain this difference.

Among all aid recipients attending privateHBCs, the share of college expenses paiddirectly by students' and their parents' con-tributions was 14 percent in 1983-84, com-pared with 33 percent for aid recipients at-tending independent colleges nationally. Inactual dollar terms, private FIBC aid recipientsand their families paid an average of $859 in1983-84, compared to $2,892 for private col-lege undergraduate aid recipients nationally.

Much of this difference in the amount thatfamilies (students and their parents) pay isbecause of the parents' low income. In1983-84, the proportion of total student ex-penses covered by parental contributions wasonly six percent for aid recipients attendingprivate HBCs, while parents of private collegeaid recipients nationally contributed morethan one-fifth (21.6 percent) of their children'scosts ($338 at HBCs as compared with $1,894at all independent colleges).

17

TABLE 4

FAMILY CONTRIBUTIONS'1983-84

Parental Student Total FamilyFamily Income Contribution Self-Help Contribution"Less than $10,000 $ 34 $501 $ 531$10,000 $20,000 153 579 715$20,000 $30,000 753 526 1,224$30,000 $40,000 1,982 866 2,695$40,000 $50,000 2,213 554 2,761Greater than $50,000 3,639 627 3,127

All incomes combined $ 338 $548 $ 859

Includes data for all full-time undergraduate dependent federal aid recipients attending independent HBCs.

'The parental contribution and student self-help do not add up to the total family contribution, because each figure represents an averagefor recipients of this type of support.

Source: UNCF/NIICU Student Aid Recipient Data Bank

CHART 2Distribution of Federal Aid

Recipients by Income Category% Private HBC'S

\ O 0 AO 0 0 0 0

Source: UNCF/NIICU Student Aid Recipient Data Bank.

% All Private Colleges

o NC) rt9 e5C) <0C) coC) AC) e)c) cbc)

$6,000 OR LESS

$6,001-$12,000

$12,001-$18,000

$18,001424,000

$24,001-$30,000

$30,001 OR MORE

Income

15

Trends for Students fromFamilies with Incomes LessThan $10,000

L1983-84, nearly 14,000 full-time under-graduate federal aid recipients attendinghistorically black private colleges and univer-sities came from families with adjusted grossincomes of less than $10,000. This representsapproximately ten percent of the 145,000federal aid recipients in this income categorynationally who attend independent collegesand universities. Student aid recipients fromfamilies earning less than $10,000 comprisealmost 40 percent of all full-time undergrad-uate aid recipients at private HBCs, comparedwith 17 percent of aid recipients at private col-leges nationally.

To highlight the impact of student aidpolicies on low-income students and thedisproportionate impact of changes in fun-ding levels on historically black colleges, thisportion of the report will present findings ofthe UNCF/NIICU student aid recipient databank for students with family incomes of lessthan $10,000 per year. This group representsalmost two of every five full-time under-graduate students attending historically blackindependent colleges and universities.

Tables 5 and 6 present the importance ofthe various types of student financial aid thatare packaged together for students attendingthese colleges. The average award is listed forrecipients of each type of aid. The resourcesare discussed below both by type (grants,loans, and work) and by source (federal, state,and institutional aid).

Types of SupportGrantsAs might be expected, low-income studentsdepend more on grant aid than on otherforms of assistance. In 1983-84, 99 percent ofprivate HBC federal aid recipients fromfamilies earning less than $10,000 per yearwho attended private HBCs received one ormore forms of grant aid. They used theseawards to cover about half (50.7 percent) ofrecipients' costs, roughly the same percentageof costs covered for students with similarfamily incomes at private colleges national-ly. Grants totaled $2,949 for the lowest-incomeaid recipients at private HBCs in 1983-84, or71 percent of the $4,129 average for the lowestincome students at private colleges nationally.

Institutional GrantsNationally, recent increases in grant awardsare the result of grants made by the institu-tion, not by the federal or state governments.Between 1981-82 and 1983-84, average institu-tional merit-based awards increased by morethan 40 percent and average institutionalneed-based awards increased by nearly 50percent.

In 1983-84, 41 percent of the lowest-incomeaid recipients at private colleges nationallyreceived need-based institutional grants,averaging $1,981 and accounting for 24 per-cent of their colleges costs. At private black

16

19

" . . . students from the lowest income families arejust as dependent on loans to attend college as areother aid recipients. 99

colleges, only 11 percent of aid recipientsreceived need-based grants directly from theirinstitutions. These grants averaged $1,112,(approximately half of the average at privatecolleges nationally) and accounted for only17 percent of college costs.

In 1983-84, 16 percent of the lowest incomeaid recipients at private colleges nationallyreceived merit-based institutional grantsaveraging $1,432 and comprising 18 percentof college costs. At private black colleges, only6 percent of their lowest income aid recipientsreceived merit-based grants directly fromtheir institutions. These grants averaged $894,(62 percent of the average at private collegesnationally) and accounted for 15 percent ofcollege costs.

Pell GrantsPell Grants played a larger role in meeting col-leges costs for private HBC recipients than forall aid recipients attending private colleges.At private HBCs, Pell Grants were awardedto 98 percent of the lowest income aid reci-pients and constituted 30 percent of collegecosts. For the lowest income aid recipients atprivate colleges nationally, 86 percent of therecipients received Pell Grants and thesegrants constituted 19 percent of college costs.

Supplemental Educational OpportunityGrantsAs with Pell Grants, SEOG awards reacheda larger percentage of the lowest incomeprivate HBC students (56.0 percent) than in-dependent college students nationally (26.6percent), and covered a larger percentage oftheir college costs (13.2 percent versus 10.0percent).

LoansThe lowest income aid recipients at privateHBCs also relied heavily on loans. Aid reci-pients at private HBCs were less likely to takeout loans than their counterparts nationally,and when debt was incurred the average sizeof the loan was smaller for private HBCstudents. This can be explained by the com-paratively lower tuitions at private HBCs andthe proportionately greater unmet need oftheir students. For the lowest income aid reci-pients at private HBCs, 48 percent took outloans to attend college in 1983-84, comparedwith 71 percent at private colleges national-ly. Fvr students receiving loans, the averageloan accounted for 29 percent of all collegecosts for the lowest income students at privateHBCs, roughly equivalent to the 28 percentof college costs covered by loans to the lowestincome recipients nationally. Average loansize was 35 percent larger for aid recipientsnationally, or $2,306 versus $1,712 for privateHBC recipients.

Guaranteed Student LoansFifty-nine percent of all aid recipients attend-ing independent colleges nationally from theunder $10,000 family income range receivedGSLs, the most popular type of student loan,compared with 35 percent of students fromthe same income background at independentHBCs. Even though a smaller percentage ofstudents at private HBCs received GSLs,these loans covered a larger percentage ofcosts (32 percent for HBC recipients versus28 percent nationally). The $1,832 averageGSL for the lowest income HBC students isapproximately 83 percent of the $2,269

17

20

TABLE 5

DISTRIBUTION OFFULL-TIME UNDERGRDUATE DEPENDENT FEDERAL AID

AND UNIVERSITIES, AND AT PRIVATE COLLEGES

PARENTAL INCOME LESS THAN $10,000


AverageAmount


of Aid


Private Private Private Private Private PrivateBlack Colleges Black Colleges Black Colleges

Colleges Nationally Colleges Nationaily Colleges Nationally

GRANTS

FederalPell $1,745 $1,596 97.8% 86.2% 30.0% 19.5%SEOG 769 817 56.0 26.6 13.2 10.0Other 1,353 0 1.3 0.0 23.3 0.0

InstitutionalNeed-Based 1,112 1,981 11.0 41.0 19.1 24.2Merit-Based 894 1,432 6.4 16.5 15.4 17.5Remissions 1,696 1,807 0.4 0.4 29.2 22.1Fellowships 2,300 200 0.1 0.3 39.5 2.4

StateNeed Based

(SSIG) 1,112 1,750 26.8 57.0 17.4 21.4Entitlement 735 1,114 20.1 6.6 12.6 13.6Merit-Based 409 977 0.6 4.1 7.0 11.9

ExternalGrants 1,122 1,021 7.3 9.8 19.3 12.5

Total Grants 2,949 4,129 99.3 97.3 50.7 50.5

SELF-HELP

LOANS

FederalGSL 1,882 2,269 35.5 59.0 32.4 27.7NDSL 787 932 15.9 28.0 13.5 11.4ALAS 0 1,187 0.0 0.5 0.0 14.5Other 500 500 0.4 0.2 8.6 6.1

InstitutionalLong-Term 933 964 1.2 1.8 16.0 11.8

ExternalLoans 1,901 1,058 0.6 0.3 32.7 12.9

Total Loans 1,712 2,306 47.7 71.0 29.4 28.2

18

21

FINANCIAL AID AMONGRECIPIENTS AT PRIVATE HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGESAND UNIVERSITIES NATIONALLY, 1983-1984



AverageAmount


of Aid


Private Private Private Private Private PrivateBlack Colleges Black Colleges Black CoilLges

Colleges Nationally Colleges Nationally Colleges Nationaliy

WORK

FederalCWS

institutional$1,026 $1,004 58.5% 38.7% 17.6% 12.3%

Assistantships 0 675 0.0 0.2 0.0 8.3Work-Study 1,155 1,304 1.7 6.9 19.9 15.9

StateWork-Study 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Work 1,054 1,132 61.0 44.7 18.1 13.8

CONTRIBUTIONS

From Student 501 1,022 95.7 96.9 8.6 12.5From Family 34 447 89.5 89.2 0.6 5.5

Total Contributions 531 1,433 96.0 96.9 9.1 17.5

Total Self-Help 1,979 3,545 99.5 99.7 34.0 43.3

OTHER AID

Federal 1,864 1,240 2.1 4.8 21.3 15.2institutional 1,158 988 6.2 6.0 13.2 12.1State 1,324 1,402 1.4 2.9 15.1 17.1

Total Other Aid 1,171 1,131 10.6 11.3 13.4 13.8

BALANCES

Total Expenses $5,818 $8,184 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%Total Resources 5,017 7,597 100.0 100.0 86.2 92.8Remaining Need (801) (587) 100.0 100.0 (13.8) (7.2)


19

22

average for all independent college aidrecipients.

In spite of the fact that a smaller propor-tion of low-income students received GSLsat independent HBCs, the very rapid growthin debt burden among students attending in-dependent HBCs could predict future pro-blems. The percentage of students takingGSLs to pay the cost of attending indepen-dent HBCs remained less than five percentthroughout the 1970s. The proportion depen-ding on loans doubled between 1979-80 and1980-81, and doubled again the followingyear. The level of participation in the GSL pro-gram continued to increase, and by 1984-85almost half of all aid recipients attending in-dependent HBCs depended on a GSL to payat least a portion of their costs. (Further detailspresented on pages 26 and 27, and in Table 8.)

Within private HBCs, students from thelowest income backgrounds were just asdependent on GSLs as were othei aidrecipients-36 percent of the aid recipientsfrom families earning less than $10,000 an-nually took out loans in 1983-84, comparedwith 38 percent of other aid recipients. Inother words, students from the lowest incomefamilies are just as likely to depend on loansto attend college as are other aid recipients.These data tell how students who do attendcollege pay for their expenses. They do notreveal the number of students who would liketo attend but do not apply, or apply and donot enroll, or enroll at ,1 soon drop out, facedwith mounting debt b.irden.

WorkMore than three out of every five of the lowestincome aid recipients at private HBCs workedduring the academic year to contribute to pay-ing for their college expenses. They weremore likely than their counterparts attendingprivate colleges nationally to work during theacademic year as part of their aid packages(61 percent of private HBC aid recipients com-pared with 45 percent nationally). Incomefrom work paid for about 18 percent of theseHBC recipients' college costs. while paying14 percent of costs for the lowest incomestudents who attended private colleges na-tionally. In dollar terms, income from work

during the academic year averaged approx-imately the same for aid recipients attendingboth private HBCs and other private collegesor universities.

Federal Work-StudyStudents attending private HBCs showedgreater dependence on federal work-studyassistance than their counterparts national-ly. Fifty-nine percent of HBC aid recipientsr2ceived this assistance compared with 39percent nationally, and 18 percent of collegecosts were met by CWS income, comparedwith 12 percent for ir dependent college aidrecipients nationally.

Institutional Work-StudyNationally, the major increase in work aid,as with grant aid, came directly from the in-stitutions. Even though only a small propor-tion of students received insfitutionally fund-ed work-study, the average award for thelowest income independent college studentsnationally more than doubled between1981-82 and 1983-84, and the proportion ofstudents participating in this program in-creased as well, from four percent in 1981-82to seven percent in 1983-84. For the lowest in-come aid recipients at private HBCs, only twopercent received institutional work-studyfunds in 1983-84.

Self-HelpViewed together with other forms of "self-help," the value of work income to a student'said package is more evident. "Self-help(' con-sists of funds received from loans, work-study, and contributions toward college costsfrom the student and from family. Total self-help for low-income students at private HBCsaveraged $1.979 and covered 34 percent of col-lege costs. At private colleges nationally, totalself-help for low-income students averaged$3,545 and covered 43 percent of costs.

Sources of AidFrom a student's perspective, the type of stu-dent financial aid available is extremely im-portant. Grants do not have to be repaid, and

20

23

are awarded without a requisite work obliga-tion. Loans, on the other hand, require a stu-dent te "bet" on his or her future income, andCollege Work-Study awards can cost a stu-dent hours away from time previouslyallocated to study.

From the institutions' perspective, it alsois important to exaraine the source of studentaid financing. Almost all student financial aidcomes from the federal or state governmentsor from the institution itself. The relativestability of student financial aid funding levels

and the possibility of changes in eligibility re-quirements for student aid programs general-ly are dependent on the source of the fun-ding. For example, the growth in student aidfunding has recently come from the state orfrom the institutions rather than from thefederal government.

Chart 3 reveals that private HBC aid reci-pients at all income levels meet a largerpercentage of their college costs throughfederal aid than their counterparts at allprivate colleges nationally. State aid meets ap-

CHART 3

Percentage100

90

80

70

60

50

4C

30

20

10

0

Aid as a Percentageof Cost-1983-1984

HBCs

111 All Private

FamilyContributions

Source UNCF/NIICU StudentAid Recip.ent Data Bank

Federal Aid State Aid

Components

Institutional Aid

21

24

proximately the same percefitage of costs atboth private EIBCs and private colleges na-tionally, and institutional aid and family con-tributions meet a significantly smaller percen-tage of costs for private HBC aid recipients.

What follows is an examination of the rolesof federal, state, and institutional aid. Final-ly, this section ends with findings about the"remaining need" facing these students afterall contributions and aid are considered.

Federal AidFederal aid plays a very significant role infinancing undergraduate edu,..:ation for thelowest-income students at private HBCs. Pell

Grants account for 30 percent of all collegecosts, compared with 20 percent at privatecolleges nat;onally; SEOG covers 13 percent,compared with 10 percent nationally; federalwork-study covers 18 percent of HBC reci-pie.At costs while offsetting 12 percent of costsnationally; and GSLs, while reaching asmaller percentage of private HBC students,cover a larger share of their costs, 33 percentversus 28 percent nationally. In total, federalaid accounts for 62 percent of all private HBCaid recipients' costs, compared with 48 per-cent of costs for all private college aid reci-pients (see Table 6).

Chart 4 reveals the participation at all in-come levels of private HBC aid recipients in

TABLE 6

SUMMARY OF AID AND RESOURCES BY TYPE AND SOURCE, 1983-84FULL-TIME UNDERGRADUATE DEPENDENT FEDERAL AID RECIPIENTS


AverageAmount


of Aid

Percentageof CostCovered

Private Private Private Private Private PrivateBlack Colleges Black Colleges Black CollegesColleges Nationally Colleges Nationally Colleges Nationally

Total by TypeGrants $2,949 $4,129 99.3 97.3 50.7 54.4Loans 1,712 2,306 47.7 71.1 29.4 30.4Work 1,054 1,132 61.0 44.7 18.1 14.9Contributions 531 1,433 96.0 96.9 9.1 18.9

Total by SourceFederal 3,623 3,677 100.0 100.0 62.3 48.4Institutional 1,127 2,018 24.6 60.5 19.4 26.6State 1,164 1,877 44.0 62.9 20.0 24.7Student/Family 531 1,433 96.0 96.9 9.1 18.9External 1,179 1,131 7.9 11.3 20.3 14.9

Source: UNCFINIICL1 Student Aid Recipient Data Bank

22

25

CHART 4Participation in Federal Student Aid Programs

for Private HBC Aid Recipientsat All Income Levels-1983-1984

Percentage ofAid Recipients

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Pell Grant01=1......

%

College Work-Study \\ --0.,.....- e .. ... ---,'><-- -....--

Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant

----------Guaranteed Student Loan

National Direct Student Loan

$10,001 to$20,000

Less Than$10,000


$20,001 to$30,000

Family Income

$30,001 to $40,001 +$40,000

federal student aid programs. Although thePell Grant is the most important source of aidfor families with incomes below $30,000, adramatic drop in Pell participation beginswhen family income reaches the $20,000 level.

College Work-Study (CWS) and the Sup-plemental Educational Opportunity Grant(SEOG) are the second and third most util-ized federal student aid programs. Work-Study funds are used by approximately 60percent of the aid recipients in each incomecategory, making CWS a standard part of aidpackages.

With SEOG support, there is a decline inparticipation at about the $30,000 parental in-come level. At all private colleges, the SEOG,Pell and CWS lines would be lower as a

smaller percentage of aid recipients receivethese awards at each income level.

With Guaranteed Student Loans, the lowestincome students are about as likeiy to receivea GSL as aid recipients in the $20,000-$30,000income range. This raises questions about thebalance between loans and grants. Should astudent from the lowest family income back-ground be just as dependent on loans asmiddle-income aid recipients?

State AidNeed-based state finan l aid programs, icluding State Student Incentive Grants (SSIG),play a less significant role on private HBCcampuses than do these programs at ofher

26

23

private colleges. Almost three out of five (57percent) low-income students at private col-leges nationally receive state grants, accoun-ting for 21 percent of college costs. At privateHBCs, only one-fourth (26.8 percent) of thesestudents receive SSIG support, accountingfor 17 percent of total college costs. SSIGawards averaged $1,750 at private colleges na-tionally, or 57 percent more than the $1,112average SSIG award for low-income studentsat private HBCs.

Interestingly, non-need-based state aid isalmost as readily available as need-basedgrants in states where HBCs are located.Twenty percent of the lowest income studentsattending HBCs receive state entitlementgrants, compared with one-quarter receivingneed-based state grants. At private collegesnationally, only 7 percent of the lowest in-come aid recipients receive state entitlementgrants. Consequently, private HBCs, servingstudents with great financial need, are muchmore likely to be located in states wherefinancial need is irrelevant to the distributionof a large proportion of student aid dollars.

The states in which HBCs are located oftendo not appropriate substantial budgets to sup-port private higher education. On average,states award 55 percent of their financial aiddollars to students attending private colleges;states in which HBCs are located award 43percent.

Institutional AidOne-fourth of the lowest-income aid reci-pients at private HBCs receive some form ofinstitutionally funded student aid. A largerportion, six out of ten, of the lowest incomeaid recipients attending independent collegesnationally receive some form of institutionalfinancial aid.

Approximately one-quarter (24.1 percent)of all institutional aid awarded by historical-ly black independent colleges was distributedon the basis of need, with the remainderawarded on the basis of merit. Nationally, forprivate college aid recipients, the percentageswere reversed: 74 percent of institutional stu-dent aid was need-based and 26 percent wasbased on merit.

Remaining NeedRemaining need is the amount of money bywhich the students' resources are less thanthe costs of attending college. For low-incomestudents at private HBCs, the average remain-ing need was $801, or 14 percent of total col-lege costs. For students in the under $10,000family income range at private colleges na-tionally, the average unmet need was $58Zor 7 percent of total college costs.

" Private HBCs, serving students with great financial need,are more likely to be located in states where financial needis irrelevant to the distribution of a large proportion ofstudent aid dollars."

24

2 7

Academic year 1979-80 represents thepeak of federal grant aid to students atten-ding private colleges and universities. Sincethat time, the availability of federal grantfunds has diminished steadily, and the rela-tionship between grant and loan funds,especially for low-income students, hasshifted dramatically.

According to statistics compiled by the

Shifts in Student Aid,1979-1980

and 1984-1985

United Negro College Fund, federal grants(Pell and SEOG) constituted 53 percent of allfinancial aid to UNCF students in 1979-80,and dropped to only 37 percent in 1984-85.Conversely, federally insured student loans(GSL and NDSL) increased from eight per-cent of total student financial assistance toUNCF students in 1979-80 to 30 percent in1984-85. (See Table 7.)

TABLE 7

TOTAL VOWME OF FINANCIAL AID AWARDS AS A PERCENTAGEOF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

UNCF INSTITUTIONS1979-80 AND 1984-85

(IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)

Type of Aid1979-80 1984-85

Pct.Change

TotalAward Pct.

TotalAward Pct.

Pell Grant: $45.8 42.2% $41.2 27.6% - 10.1%SEOG 11.8 10.9 13.8 9.2 - 16.7CWS 18.4 16.9 16.9 11.3 - 8.1GSL 4.1 3.8 39.3 26.3 + 849.0NDSL 5.1 4.7 5.2 3.5 + 1.4State Scholarships 9.7 8.9 15.4 10.3 + 59.2Inst'l Scholarships 9.4 8.6 13.1 8.9 + 71.0Other Scholarships 3.2 2.9 3.9 2.6 + 20.5Vet. Benefits 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.4 - 51.2

Source: UNCF Statistical Report, 1981 and 1988

25

28

TABLE 8

STUDENT AID AT UNCF COLLEGES: AVERAGE AWARDS AND PERCENTAGEOF RECIPIENTS, 1979-80 THRU 1984-85

PELL SEOG GSL CWS State InstitutionalAverage % ofAward Students

Average % ofAward Students


Average % ofAwarti Students



1979-80 $1 -:-24 72% $707 37% $1,773 5% $892 46% $713 30% $1,096 19%

1980-81 1,409 73 716 38 1,717 10 937 44 727 35 1,403 17

198142 1,275 75 754 39 2,131 22 893 44 844 37 1,165 23

1982-83 1,386 66 801 37 2,298 26 936 43 887 34 1,287 19

1983-84 1,400 67 771 39 2,032 37 948 43 863 37 1,521 18

1984-85 1,461 65 827 38 1,977 46 953 41 897 39 1,487 20

Source: UNCF Statistical Report, 1981 thru 1988.

Pell GrantsAlmost three-fourths (72 percent) of all UNCFstudents received Pell Grants in 1979-80, whilefewer than two-thirds (65 percent) wereawarded such grants in 1984-85. Table 8 showsthe percentage of students attendinghistorically black independent colleges whoreceived Pell grants and other forms of stu-dent aid in 1979-80 through 1984-85. Theaverage award and the percentage of studentsreceiving each award are shown for studentsreceiving each type of aid. (Table 8 presentsdata on all students attending UNCF colleges.Prior tables emphasize data for full-timeundergraduates who depend on parents forsupport.)

In addition to reaching a smaller percen-tage of students, the average Pell Grant in-creased only three percent between 1979-80and 1984-85. Pell Grants were unable to keeppace with inflation as tuitions at private blackcolleges rose 63 percent during this period.

Supplemental EducationalOpportunity GrantsThe proportion of UNCF students receivingSEOG awards remained constant between1979-80 and 1984-85, 37 percent in 1984-85 and38 percent in 1984-85, with no more than aone or two percent change in the interven-ing years. While tuitions increased 63 percent,the average SEOG grant rose 17 percent from$707 to $827.

Guaranteed Student LoansGuaranteed Student Loan (GSL) participa-tion rose dramatically from five percent of allUNCF students in 1979-80 to 46 percent in1984-85. Total GSL volume rose almost ten-fold, from $4,139,201 in 1979-80 to $39,286,414in 1984-85. In comparison, total Pell Grantvolume dropped 11 percent from $45,808,892to $41,200,289. Guaranteed Student Loans arenow the second largest source of financial

26

29

assistance at UNCF institutions, representingalmost as much aid as Pell Grants. In 1979-80,GSLs were the seventh largest source of stu-dent financial support, behind Pell, WorkStudy, SEOG, state scholarships, institutionalaid, and National Direct Student Loans. Inaddition to the increase in total GSL volume,the average level of borrowing rose 12 per-cent, from $1,773 in 1979-80 to $1,997 fiveyears later.

College Work-StudyAs with federal grants, College Work-Studyconstituted a smaller share of total financialaid in 1984-85 than in 1979-80. CWS amount-ed to 11 percent of all financial assistance atprivate black colleges in 1984-85, down from17 percent five years earlier. Income fromCWS averaged $892 in 1979-80 and $953 in1984-85, up seven percent at a time when tu-itions rose 63 percent. The proportion ofUNCF students receiving Work-Study sup-port declined from 46 percent in 1979-80 to41 percent in 1984-85.

State GrantsAlthough federal grants and work-studydeclined in their relative importance in fin-ancial aid packages, state grants, at least instates where UNCF colleges are located, ex-perienced a slight increase. State grants as apercentage of total financial assistance rosefrom nine percent of all financial assistance

in 1979-80 to ten percent in 1984-85. Averageawards rose 26 percent, from $713 in 1979-80to $897 in 1984-85. Unlike the trend with PellGrants and College Work-Study, state scholar-ships were reaching a larger percentage ofUNCF students in 1984-85 than five yearsearlier-39 percent as compared with 30 per-cent in 1979-80.

Institutional AidInstitutionally funded financial assistance re-mained relatively constant at approximatelynine percent of all student financial assistanceboth in 1979-80 and again in 1984-85. Institu-tional grants were awarded to 19 percent ofUNCF students in 1979-80 and 20 percent in1984-85. Total institutional grant volume rose39 percent, from $9,393,418 to $13,063,694.Even though the average award increased ata faster rate than federal or state grantsasubstantial 36 percent, from $1,096 in 1979-80to $1,487 in 1984-85the increases still laggedbehind the 63 percent increase in tuition dur-ing this period. While this increase does notmatch the increases in tuition charges or off-set the losses in federal grant and work-studyaid, the relative stability of direct institutionalaid has been of critical importance to aid reci-pients and has helped fill a critical need gap.

These trends indicate that the relativedecline in federal grant and work-study aidhas brought many students into the GSL pro-gram, and created greater dependence onstate scholarships and institutional grants.

" Since 1979-80, the availability of federal grant funds hasdirninshed steadily, and the relationship between grant andloan funds has shifted dramatically",

27

3 0

Conclusions

For more than a century, historically blackindependent colleges and universities haveserved students who have been inadequate-ly or only partially served by other segmentsof American higher education.

In educating these students, historicallyblack colleges have served the good of the na-tion. Especially today, as we enter the twenty-first century and an era based on knowledge,information-transfer, and technology, thesecolleges play an increasingly important rolein the future of America.

The changing world economy features in-creased competition from abroad as well asnew challenges at home. At the same time,the American population is becoming morediverse racially and is becoming bimodal inincome, with the broad middle-class beingreplaced by a relatively few wealthy familiesand by large numbers of single-parent house-holds and a growing number of childrenreared in poverty. An educated citizenry isessential to the strength of America's defense,to its business interests, and to its socialwelfare.

By 2000, the number of young adultsavailable to fill the traditional entry-level andmiddle-management jobs will be shrinking.No longer can we afford to allow Americanyouth to exist without an education commen-surate with their talent. America's youth mustrealize their educational potential in order forAmerica to compete successfully.

At the same time that the national need foran educated citizenry is increasing, and theimportant role of minority youth and the in-stitutions that educate them is increasingly

28

31

"Examination of the demographic trends in America pointsto a national policy of divestiture in American youth.,,

evident, recent public policy decisions augeragainst needed increases in the educationallevel of minorities in America.

Because of the declining purchasing powerof federal grants to low-income students,students from the most needy families nowmust face large debt burdens in order to at-tend college. Often, students must assumedebt larger than their families' annual incometo pay college expenses. Understandably,some students see debt as an unacceptablerisk, limiting their options for education.Plans for graduate or professional education,or opportunities to choose occupations inteaching, social services, or the ministry oftenare limited because of such debt.

Examination of the demographic trends inAmerica, the future of the American econ-omy, and trends in the education of America'syouthparticularly minority youthpoints toa national policy of divestiture in the futureof American youth. A renewed and greaterinvestment in education is essential to assure

Notes1. See Jacqueline Flemirg, Blacks in College, San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985 and Walter Allen, Gender andCampus Race Differences in Black Student Performance,Racial Attitudes and College Satisfaction, Ann Arbor:University of Michigan, p. 19.2. See Jacqueline Fleming, "Standardized Test Scoresand the Black College Environment," N.Y.: United

an educated citizenry.We are living in a time when the propor-

tion of college-age youth that are low-incomeand minority is increasing steadily. By theyear 2000, more than 30 percent of the college-age population will be minority, while todayit is 25 percent. There will be an increasingpool of financial need in the college-agepopulation at a time when the purchasingpower of federal financial assistance isdeclining.

Since about 1979, we have witnessed theimplications of these trends. While a largerpercentage of black and Hispanic youth aregraduating from high school, their college-going rate has declined sharply. If this trendcontinues, we will be a significantly lesseducated society in the year 2000. Unless thenational investment in the education ofminority youth is increased, the chance oftheir reaching their potential will be limited.We all will lose in the process.

Negro College Fund Research Report, Volume X,November 1, 1986.3. A. Astin, The American Freshman: National Norms forFall 1985, Los Angeles: UCLA Higher Education Re-search Institute, 1985, pp. 44-59.4. Astin, pp- 44-59.

29

APPENDIX A

Technical Report

THE UNCF/NI1CU Student Aid RecipientData Bank (SARD) contains data on in-dividual student aid recipients attendinghistorically black independent colleges anduniversities in 1983-84. These data were col-lected using the procedures described below.

Selection of Participating InstitutionsNIICU has developed four Student Aid Reci-pient Data Banks (1978-79, 1979-80, 1981-82,and 1983-84) for students attending indepen-dent colleges and universities. In each ofthese surveys, a stratified random sample ofinstitutions was selected to submit data forbuilding the data base. In the UNCF/NIICUSARD, however, this procedure was deemedunnecessary since there were only 56 histori-cally black independent colleges and univer-sities in the population. Therefore, all 56 wereasked to participate in the study.

Identification of the In-SchoolPopulationThe population for this study was defined asall students attending historically black in-dependent colleges and universities whoreceived any form of student financial aidfrom any source during the 1983-84 academicyear. Types included grants, work and loans;sources induded federal, state, institutional,and private.

Selection of the In-School SampleEach participating institution was asked tocomplete one survey form for each aid reci-pient, who was identified by using a randomsampling procedure.

To assure that each college submitted dataon enough student aid recipients to offer

reliable in-school samples, the number ofsurveys requested from each college oruniversity was set at 75. The validity andreliability of in-school samples was importantbecause of plans to provide institutionalanalyses to each participating college anduniversity. If a school had fewer than 75 red-pients, 100 percent of the aid records becamepart of the study.

Construction of the Data BaseReturned survey forms were manually andmechanically edited for errors and omissions.Questionable data were confirmed or cor-rected by contacting the person in the finan-cial aid office who submitted the data.Surveys with "bad data" (those which couldnot be corrected) were deleted from the database.

Weighting the Data BaseThe results presented in this report reflectweighted data, meaning our estimate of thefinding as if we had collected data on 100 per-cent of the recipients attending all 56 histori-cally black independent colleges and univer-sities. This weighting procedure had twosteps.

First, school weights were computed bydividing the number of aid recipients in eachschool by the number of surveys for thatschool in the data base. For example, if aschool submitted 75 surveys representing 350aid recipients, its school weight was 4.00(300/75). Next, each college's data was weigh-ed so that all colleges in the universe wererepresented. In this study, 38 institutions (68percent) agreed to participate. (See Appen-dix B for a list of the colleges and universitiesthat participated in the study.)

30

33

APPENDIX B

AlabamaOakwood College, HuntsvilleMiles College, BirminghamStillman College, TuscaloosaTalladega College, TalladegaTuskegee U., Tuskegee Institute

ArkansasPhilander Smith College,

Little Rock

FloridaBethune-Cookman College,

Daytona BeachEdward Walters College,

JacksonvilleFlorida Memorial College,

Miami

GeorgiaAtlanta University, AtlantaClark College, AtlantaMorehouse College, AtlantaMorris Brown College, AtlantaPaine College, AugustaSpelman College, Atlanta

LouisianaDillard University, New OrleansXavier University, New Orleans

MississippiRust College, Holly SpringsTougaloo College, Tougaloo

Survey Participants

North CarolinaBarber-Scotia College, ConcordBennett College, GreensboroJohnson C. Smith University,

CharlotteLivingstone College, Salisbury

OhioWilberforce University, Wilberforce

South CarolinaBenedict College, ColumbiaClaflin College, OrangeburgMorris College, SumterVoorhees College, DenmarkClinton Junior College, Rock Hill*

TennesseeFisk University, NashvilleKnoxville College, KnoxvilleLane College, JacksonLe Moyne-Owen College, MemphisMorristown College, Morristown*

TexasTexas College, TylerWiley College, Marshall

VirginiaSaint Paul's College, LawrencevilleVirginia Union University, Richmond

*Not a United Negro College Fund member institution.

31

34

document resume he 020 311document resume ed 282 487 he 020 311 author kirschner, alan h.; thrift,...

Documents