Louisiana’s First Choice for College AccessLASFAA Fall Conference

October 27, 2011Presented By:

Melanie AmrheinExecutive Director

State Programs UpdateTOPSGO GrantEarly StartState Matching Funds GrantGA FunctionsLAConnect

TOPS FundingBy State Fiscal Year as of 8/4/2011

$-

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

54.067.4

90.0102.2

90.9 98.6 102.9 101.7 103.4 99.3 97.4112.6

128.4

46.2

0.2

1.8

13.711.9 14.1 15.1 17.1 17.3 22.3

17.3

16.0

15.9

3.3

92.3

Mil

lio

ns

State General Fund TOPS Fund Other

54.0 67.4 90.2 104.0 104.6 110.5 117.1 116.9 120.6 116.6 122.9 129.9 144.4 154.4

The 2011-12 data is current appropriation subject to change if a constitutional amendment passes in October 2011.

TOPS2010-11 Appropriation

• Grad Act - Tuition• Funding Source

Core Curriculum Changes • Graduates of 2014• 19 Credits

Governance Commission• Merit vs Need

Potential Legislative Actions• Award Amounts

GO GRANT2011-12 Award Year

• $26,429,108 (same as 2010-11)• School Allocations and Deadlines• 5th Year Cohort• Projecting 30,000 Eligibles• $1,000 Full Time Annual Award Amount

2012-13 Budget Request• Fully Fund Program at $51,737,333• Continue to allocate to campuses

New Methodology is Under Consideration• Need vs Merit – BOR Study

Go Grant Funding/Students

Year Appropriation Students Awarded2007- 2008

$2,000 annual award based on Estimated Cost Gap

$15,000,000 10,409

2008-2009$2,000 annual award based on

Estimated Cost Gap$24,226,000 15,973

2009-2010*Award Amount Changed to Accommodate Anticipated

Funding in Executive Budget

26,429,108 22,355

2010-2011$900 annual award

(New Framework proposed based on Cost of Attendance)

$26,429,108 30,738

2011-2012$1,000 annual award

$26,429,10830,000

(projected) 6

The Research Questions

Research questions: Pell Study

• How does the level and mix of financial assistance affect fall-to-fall same school student retention in Louisiana among Pell Grant recipients?

• Can we observe differences in the retention of Pell Grant recipients versus students in other financial classifications (needy non-Pell recipients and no-need students)?

Research questions: Pell Study

• Can we identify flex points in the size and composition of financial aid awards where additional dollars yield diminishing or no returns? Can we help Louisiana package aid more efficiently by eliminating “overpayment” to some students and shifting that money to students who might otherwise be inclined to drop out?

Research questions: Pell Study

• How does the GO Grant interact with the Pell Grant in terms of impact on student retention?

• What is the best use of the state’s financial aid investment in TOPS Scholarships and GO Grants?

Increasing the gift percentage from <30 percent to 55-<60 percent corresponds to a 26 percentage point increase in the retention rate, while increasing the percentage of need met with gift aid from 55 to <60 percent to 70-<80 percent increases retention by only 4 points.

Adding the Go Grant alone increases the percentage of need met with gift aid by 14 percentage points and provides a 5.6 percentage point

improvement in retention

All pairwise comparisons of means are significant except for retention rate between Pell+TOPS and Pell+GO+TOPS

Simulation parameter

• We repackaged student’s GO Grants in the range of $0 to $4,000 with a target of meeting 55 percent of need with gift aid

• In some cases, $4,000 grants were not sufficient to bring a group of students up to the 55 percent of need met w/gift target

• In other cases, totally eliminating their GO Grants did not bring them down to the 55 percent

• We took the resulting financial aid package for each subset and estimated a new retention rate based on actual historical behavior of students who had received that level of financial assistance with that level of academic preparation

The simulation results show that you could increase retention and it would be cost-neutral*

Gift % Actual Results (2007-08 and 08-09) Simulated Results Change

Retention % # Students Retention % # Students Retention % # Students

<30% 41% 138 57% 192 +16% +54

30-40 56% 445 62% 496 +6% +51

40-50 59% 1,037 64% 1,121 +5% +84

50-55 63% 567 65% 590 +2% +23

55-60 72% 442 67% 412 -5% -30

60-70 69% 808 69% 806 -- -2

70-80 74% 664 74% 669 -- +5

80+ 81% 1,145 77% 1,083 -4% -62

* The simulation at 55% actually projected a two-year savings of $780,000

2012-13 GO Grant Framework• Allocation to School Based on Pell Eligible Enrollment

from Prior Year• First Consider Student’s Eligibility for State and Federal

“Gift Aid” Programs, i.e. Pell, SEOG, TOPS• If the Combination of these Programs does Not Meet the

55% Threshold, GO Can be Added up to that Threshold. • Institutional Aid May be Added Beyond the 55%

Threshold • Institutions May Implement a Common Award Amount

across all COA, Based on COA Categories or Packaged Individually

• Annual Award Amounts May Range from $500 to $4000

Financial Need Living on Campus – 2011-12

Max Pell + TOPS Max Pell COA $ 15,499 $15,499- EFC * $ 0 $ 0= Financial Need $ 15,499 $15,499- Pell Grant $ 5,550 $ 5,500 - TOPS + Stipend $ 4,278 (63.4%) $ 0 (35%)=Remaining Need $ 5,671 $ 9,999- Go Grant $ 0 $ 3,000 (54.8%) Remaining Need $ 5,671 $ 6,999

55% of need = $8,524

Financial Need Living on Campus – 2011-12

Min Pell + TOPS Min Pell COA $ 15,499 $15,499- EFC * $ 5,273 $ 5,273= Financial Need $ 10,226 $10,226- Pell Grant $ 555 $ 555 - TOPS + Stipend $ 4,278 (47%) $ 0 (5.4%)- Remaining Need $ 5,393 $ 9,671 - Go Grant $ 800 (55%) $ 4,000 (50%) Remaining Need $ 4,593 $ 5,671

55% of need = $5,624

How Can Schools Package Go Within Framework

• Identify Challenges• Work Towards Common Solutions• Advisory Committee Can Take Lead• Task Force Could Be Created• LOSFA Can Lend Some Technological Support

Early Start Expenditures and Recipients

$3.6$4.0

$5.6$6.0

$5.5

7,163

9,729

13,841

16,030

9,166

02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,000

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Early Start Awards Early Start Recipients

Academic Year

As of August 4, 2011

Notes: (1) The 2008-2009 data only includes state funding for the first half of the year and does not include the cost of the program for the second half of the year that was assumed by the participating colleges and universities. (2) The 2011-12 Academic Year data shows the amount appropriated and projected to be expended for the year and the projected number of recipients.

$ in Millions Students

Early Start2011-12 Award Amount Paid for Technical Courses was revised

back to $100 per credit hour

School Allocations

HCR 23 requests a comprehensive study of all dual enrollment programs funded by the state. The results will influence framework changes especially as they relate to TOPS Tech ES and ES.

Automation of Early Start Application• April, 2012• Via LAConnect

2012-13 Appropriation • Request $6,000,000

State Matching Funds Grant• State Portion of LEAP/SLEAP Program that

Remained in Budget for AY 2011-12• Framework Kept Consistent with Former

Program• Remains in Continuation Budget for 2012-13• Future Uncertain

– Could go back to State General Funds– Could be utilized to Supplement GO – Could Continue as Separate Line Item in Budget

LOSFAPast, Present and Future

• Past• 45 years as designated Guarantor for LA under FFEL

• Present• Providing services for outstanding loan portfolio• Default Prevention, Delinquency Aversion and Default

Recoveries

• Future• Provide services to WDF borrowers• Operate under Voluntary Flexible Agreement with USDE

Federal Register and Solicitation of Proposals

• Federal Register issued May 31, 2011

• Authorizes and Encourages Guaranty Agencies to Submit Proposals for Services under Voluntary Flexible Arrangements (VFA)

• Solicitation of questions to Federal Register requested by June 9, 2011

• Conference call with USDE on questions held June 13, 2011

• Deadline for submission of proposals was August 1, 2011

GA Responsibility Areas• GA Responsibility Area I

– Lender Claims Review/Payment and Default Collections

• GA Responsibility Area II– Delinquency and Default Prevention and Management

• GA Responsibility Area III– Community Outreach, Financial Literacy and Debt

Management, School Training and Assistance, and School Oversight

• GA Responsibility Area IV– Lender and Lender Servicer Oversight

LOSFA’S DECISION Enter into VFA arrangement with consortium of

agencies with similar structure (i.e. state agencies)

1. State-designated College Access and Student Success Agencies (SCASSA) Twelve state agencies Develop Common Platform Default Prevention, Financial Literacy/Outreach, Lender Review

2. Eagle Users Consortium Five agencies currently on Eagle (SallieMae) platform Default Prevention, Financial Literacy/Outreach, Lender Review

FAO Communication

• Advisory Committee– 2011-12 New Representatives

• Bulletins/Blast E-mails– Program Announcements/Changes

• System Feedback Loop– FAO Feedback

• Training Webinars– Provided by Scholarship/Grant and Information

Technolgy

Louisiana Connect Landing Page

SLIDE 27