Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance

Summary of the Advisory Committee's Hearing

**Washington Court Hotel, Washington, D.C.**

**April 25, 2005**

# BACKGROUND

The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance serves as an
independent source of advice and counsel to Congress and the Secretary
of Education on student financial aid policy.

It was established by Congress through the Higher Education Amendments
of 1986 and began operation in 1988. The congressional mandate requires
that the Advisory Committee conduct objective, nonpartisan, and
independent analyses on important aspects of the student assistance
programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act.

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, Congress charged the
Advisory Committee to conduct a one-year study to determine whether a
broad and cost-effective simplification initiative could increase the
effectiveness of student aid. Congress mandated this simplification
study as part of the ongoing reauthorization of the Higher Education Act
(HEA). The Committee submitted its final report for this study to
Congress and the Secretary on January 21, 2005. The report included four
national imperatives encompassing ten recommendations for simplifying
the financial aid application process, especially for low- and
moderate-income students.

# PURPOSE OF THE HEARING

On April 25, the Advisory Committee held a hearing at the Washington
Court Hotel in Washington, D.C. to review and discuss various proposals
related to financial aid simplification and to develop a broad,
bipartisan consensus on how best to simplify student aid during HEA
reauthorization without adverse effects on program costs, equity, or
integrity. The hearing focused on several issues, including legislative
initiatives for simplifying student aid in HEA reauthorization and the
higher education community's priorities for simplification. The hearing
also addressed implementation issues surrounding specific simplification
proposals, including piloting paperless delivery systems and creating a
system of early financial aid information. The Committee heard testimony
from congressional staff, representatives of the higher education
community, state agency officials, and members of the early intervention
community.

# PANELISTS

# Session I: Legislative Initiatives for Simplifying Student Aid

## Staff of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce

Ms. Ellynne Bannon

Professional Staff Member

Ms. Alison Griffin

Mr. Alex Nock

Professional Staff Member

Education Coordinator

(testimony provided in writing)

Mr. Heath Weems

Senior Legislative Assistant

# 

# *Staff of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions*

Mr. Scott Fleming

Professional Staff Member

Ms. Jane Oates

Senior Education Advisor

Ms. Elyse Wasch

Legislative Director

# 

# Session II: Community Priorities for Simplification

Ms. Leslie L. Atkinson

Director of Government Affairs, United Negro College Fund

Mr. David S. Baime

Vice President for Government Relations, American Association of
Community Colleges

Ms. Sarah A. Flanagan

Vice President for Government Relations and Policy, National Association
of Independent Colleges and Universities

Dr. Terry W. Hartle

Senior Vice President, Division of Government Relations and Policy,
American Council on Education

Mr. David A. Hawkins

Director of Public Policy, National Association for College Admission
Counseling

Ms. Kathleen Little

Senior Executive Director, The College Board

Dr. A. Dallas Martin, Jr.

President, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators

Ms. Kate Rube

Higher Education Advocate, State PIRGs

Ms. Ajita Tallwalker

President, United States Student Association

# Session III: Piloting a Paperless Delivery System

Ms. Rebecca Antar

Legislative Assistant, Office of the Honorable Rahm Emanuel

Ms. Theresa Antworth

Director of State Grant and Scholarship Programs, Florida Department of
Education and President, NASSGAP

Dr. Steven E. Brooks

Executive Director, North Carolina Education Assistance Authority

Mr. Robert E. Butler

Chief Operating Officer, New York State Higher Education Services
Corporation

Dr. John Jennetten

Chief Program Officer, Illinois Student Assistance Commission

# Session IV: Creating a System of Early Financial Aid Information

Dr. Ann S. Coles

Senior Vice President, College Access Programs and Director, Pathways to
College Network, The Education Resources Institute (TERI)

Ms. Adrienne Hahn

Vice President of Public Policy, Casey Family Programs

Dr. Nicole F. Hurd

Assistant Dean and Director, Center for Undergraduate Excellence,
University of Virginia

Ms. Yolanda Knight

Assistant Director, Department of Postsecondary Education, Chicago
Public Schools

Dr. Laura W. Perna

Assistant Professor of Higher Education, University of Maryland

# 

# 

# SUMMARY OF MEETING

**Session I: Legislative Initiatives for Simplifying Student Aid**

In the opening session, a bipartisan panel of congressional staff from
the Committee on Education and Workforce in the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) in
the Senate discussed their legislative goals for simplification in the
current HEA reauthorization. Among the panelists, there was agreement on
the complexity in the student financial aid process and support of
several simplification proposals, including those recommended by the
Advisory Committee. When outlining key components of various bills that
have been introduced, several differences in approaches to
simplification also became apparent.

The three panelists representing the House Committee on Education and
the Workforce,

Ms. Alison Griffin, Mr. Heath Weems, and Ms. Ellynne Bannon, were
supportive of several simplification initiatives. Ms. Griffin and Mr.
Weems both expressed support for achieving simplification in this
reauthorization. Mr. Weems, staff member for Representative Howard
"Buck" McKeon (R-CA), discussed Rep. McKeon's history of support for
simplification, including his sponsorship of the Financial Aid
Simplification Act with Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) in the
108^th^ Congress and the Fed Up Initiative. Ms. Griffin, representing
Representative John Boehner (R-OH), Chairman of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, outlined the simplification provisions
included in the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005 (H.R. 609),
the HEA reauthorization bill introduced in February 2005 by Reps.
Boehner and McKeon. This legislation would create the College Access
Initiative, an early financial aid information partnership between the
Department of Education (ED) and guaranty agencies. H.R. 609 would also
reduce the work penalty by increasing the Income Protection Allowance
(IPA) for dependent students, treat prepaid tuition plans as assets in
need analysis, and amend the drug conviction question to avoid
penalizing students who commit a drug offense prior to receiving federal
aid.

Ms. Griffin also discussed a proposal included in H.R. 609 to align
eligibility for the Simplified Needs Test (SNT) and the automatic zero
EFC (auto-zero) with participation in federal means-tested benefit
programs. Several other panelists also expressed support for this idea,
including Ms. Bannon from the office of Representative George Miller
(D-CA), Ranking Member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Ms. Bannon discussed the College Aid Made EZ Act (H.R. 1277), a
simplification bill introduced in March 2005 by Rep. Emanuel and
co-sponsored by Rep. Miller. Like H.R. 609, the College Aid Made EZ Act
would also align eligibility for the auto-zero and SNT with eligibility
for federal means-tested programs, such as Food Stamps and the National
School Lunch Program. H.R. 1277 also included many other simplification
initiatives, such as providing students with earlier estimates of their
aid eligibility, reducing the work penalty, raising the auto-zero income
threshold to \$25,000, creating a paper EZ FAFSA for low-income
students, and tailoring FAFSA on the Web to individual student
circumstances. In addition, H.R. 1277 requires the Secretary to reduce
the number of data elements on the FAFSA within five years. Finally, Ms.
Bannon expressed support of the Advisory Committee's goal of creating
strengthened public-private partnerships.

Panelists representing members of the Senate also expressed strong
bipartisan support for achieving simplification in this reauthorization.
Mr. Scott Fleming, representing Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), Chairman of
the HELP Committee, and Ms. Jane Oates, representing Senator Edward
Kennedy (D-MA), Ranking Member of the HELP Committee, noted that the
Senate is committed to a bipartisan reauthorization process. In
expressing support for several simplification initiatives, such as using
technology to create individualized FAFSAs for students and a tailored
verification process, Mr. Fleming also noted the changing demographics
of the college student population and the increasing number of
nontraditional students in higher education. Ms. Oates also commented on
the importance of recognizing the needs of nontraditional students in
any simplification efforts. She also cautioned that technology, while
helpful for those students who can access it, is not a solution for the
10 to 20 percent of students who still complete paper applications and
for older students who may not be as comfortable using technology.

Ms. Elyse Wasch, representing Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) also expressed
strong support for simplification, describing two bills that Sen. Reed
was planning to introduce that would implement many simplification
proposals. The first piece of legislation would create new access and
persistence partnerships to provide adequate grant aid to low-income
students. In addition, another bill would simplify the financial aid
process and would implement many of the Advisory Committee's
recommendations, including creating a paper EZ FAFSA and phasing out the
full paper form, simplifying the application process for students with
special circumstances, creating a system of early financial aid
information, and aligning the auto-zero and SNT with eligibility for
federal means-tested programs.

Several panelists also expressed support for reducing the work penalty
in this reauthorization. For example, Ms. Wasch and Ms. Oates both
characterized fixing the work penalty as a priority for this
reauthorization, and Mr. Fleming expressed support for this proposal as
well. Other priorities that panelists listed included creating a paper
EZ FAFSA for low-income students and providing students with earlier
information about financial aid. Panelists also expressed support for
simplifying the verification process in order to increase access and
persistence. Ms. Griffin commented that simplifying verification through
a data match with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could also increase
program integrity. Finally, panelists and Committee members discussed
the extent that data element reduction can be achieved in this
reauthorization. Ms. Bannon noted that Rep. Miller is encouraged by the
EZ FAFSA, but is also committed to reducing the number of questions on
the FAFSA for middle- and upper-income students as well.

# Session II: Community Priorities for Simplification

In the second session of the hearing, representatives from different
sectors of the higher education community discussed their proposals for
simplification of student aid as well as their overall priorities for
HEA reauthorization. All of the panelists expressed strong support for
achieving simplification in this reauthorization and for many of the
Advisory Committee's recommendations for simplifying student aid. In
some cases, the panelists outlined different approaches for implementing
the simplification initiatives discussed during the session.

Representatives of the community agreed that more must be done to
provide students with greater awareness of financial aid eligibility and
early financial aid information. For example, Dr. Terry Hartle,
representing the American Council on Education (ACE), spoke to the need
for new and better marketing of the information that currently exists,
indicating that the limitations of early awareness and information may
be the result of inadequate marketing by ED. Further, Dr. Hartle called
for the development of a new public-private partnership to provide
better information about student financial aid and an overhaul of ED's
College Opportunities On-Line (COOL) website to make it more user
friendly to students and families, as well as more educational and
informative.

Ms. Sarah Flanagan of the National Association of Independent Colleges
and Universities (NAICU) echoed Mr. Hartle's remarks and further noted
the need to ensure that such activities are targeted toward low-income
families most at risk of not attending college, which could perhaps be
done best by focusing on those families qualifying for federal
means-tested programs. She also expressed support for revamping the COOL
website so that it designed for students, and not for researchers.
Similarly, Dr. A. Dallas Martin Jr. of the National Association of
Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA) noted the importance and
benefits of early awareness initiatives but also noted that they do not
always reach their intended audience. He called for a comprehensive,
federal initiative to provide students and parents with age-appropriate
financial aid information. Ms. Ajita Talwalker of the United States
Student Association (USSA) also noted that providing clear information
to students and families would help in addressing the affordability gap.

While there was overall support for early information and awareness,
several panelists did caution about the approach that is taken. For
example, Mr. David Hawkins, speaking for the National Association of
College Admissions Counselors (NACAC), noted that for early information
and awareness activities to be successful, they must leverage the
information that already exists and involve all stakeholders. Similarly,
Ms. Leslie Atkinson of the United Negro College Fund (UNCF) and Ms. Kate
Rube of the State PIRG's cautioned that information needs to be clear
and understandable to avoid further confusion. However,

Ms. Rube also noted that allowing students to apply early for financial
aid using prior, prior year income could help demystify the financial
aid process by providing early information of aid eligibility as well as
providing more time for students to understand the process.

Panelists also expressed their overall support for several proposals
directly related to simplifying the FAFSA. For example, Ms. Flanagan
suggested that the application process could be further simplified by
removing redundant questions and the "social policy" questions, or those
related to an applicant's drug conviction and Selective Service
Registration status. She also recommended tailoring FAFSA on the Web to
a student's state of residence and addressing the needs of applicants in
foster care. Ms. Talwalker also indicated that developing an EZ FAFSA
for low-income applicants and aligning eligibility for the auto-zero and
SNT recommendations with eligibility for federal means-tested benefit
programs would help to make the application process less burdensome for
low-income families. Ms. Kathleen Little of the College Board however,
expressed concern that having both the full paper FAFSA and a paper EZ
FAFSA in use simultaneously may lead to greater confusion and therefore
called for simplifying FAFSA on the Web to the fullest extent possible
and encouraging more students to apply on-line.

Consensus was also achieved on the need to increase the auto-zero income
threshold to \$25,000 to align it with eligibility for federal
means-tested programs, and adjust it annually according to the Consumer
Price Index (CPI). As Ms. Little and Ms. Rube both commented, aligning
eligibility for the auto-zero with eligibility for federal means-tested
programs would make it easier to identify students who are potentially
eligible for the maximum Pell Grant and target early financial aid
information to these students. Further, Dr. Martin noted that adjusting
the auto-zero annually using the CPI would ensure that increasing
inflation does not weaken its effectiveness.

Several panelists also supported addressing the "work penalty" and
suggested a variety of approaches for doing so. For example, Ms. Little
advocated in favor of reducing the work penalty by using a variable
assessment rate on dependent student earnings, like the current variable
rate for parental income, as opposed to using a fixed rate. Ms. Atkinson
also recommended fixing the work penalty in this reauthorization. In
addition, she cautioned against making any changes in the application
process that would add administrative burden to institutions and to
financial aid offices and called for increased efforts to simplify the
verification process in order to reduce the burden on both students and
institutions. Mr. David Baime of the American Association of Community
Colleges (AACC) also called for reducing the work penalty and for better
integration between the verification and financial aid application
processes. He further highlighted the importance of tailoring the
application process to address the needs of nontraditional students.

In the discussion at the end of the session, members of the panel agreed
that more must be done to simplify the application process for
applicants in foster care. Panelists also discussed whether attempts to
provide students with early notification of aid eligibility risk
creating a disincentive to attend college. Dr. Martin commented that
such a disincentive could be avoided by allowing students to fill out a
small subset of questions from the FAFSA to allow for the determination
of rough estimates of aid eligibility. There was also a discussion of
the need for a more comprehensive review of need analysis, which, as

Mr. Baime mentioned during his testimony, has not been conducted since
1992. Although he noted that such a review would help determine if
federal student aid was being directed to the appropriate students, Ms.
Flanagan noted that several improvements were recommended under the 1992
review and, unfortunately, none of the solutions at the time were
affordable.

# Session III: Piloting a Paperless Delivery System

The third session examined best practices for implementing paperless
delivery systems and the necessary components of a pilot program. The
panelists, three of which represented states in various stages of
developing paperless delivery systems, all agreed that the federal and
state governments could work together to pilot such a system. The
panelists further agreed that better integration of state and federal
web-based systems would assist in the transition to a paperless delivery
system.

Opening the session, the panelists representing state agencies discussed
their experiences with implementing paperless delivery systems. Dr.
Steven Brooks of the North Carolina Education Assistance Authority noted
that North Carolina has implemented a paperless delivery system for the
college admissions process and the delivery of financial aid information
and is now interested in further developing a paperless financial aid
application and delivery system. Having mastered their on-line financial
aid information and application system, Dr. John Jennetten of the
Illinois Student Aid Commission (ISAC) said they are now turning their
focus toward the on-line college planning and admissions processes.
Finally, Mr. Robert Butler of New York's Higher Education Services
Corporation (HESC) described the steps HESC has taken to increase the
number of on-line Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) applications, and
noted that they will now begin looking at improving other on-line
aspects of financial aid processing and delivery, such as web-based TAP
award notices.

The panelists from North Carolina, Illinois, and New York described how
the comprehensive websites developed in their states serve multiple
functions beyond on-line applications for federal student aid. For
example, these websites also provide students with the ability to plan
for college as well as apply for admission. Equally important, they also
have an early financial aid awareness and information function. As Dr.
Brooks noted, the information campaign associated with North Carolina's
website, which is part of the College Foundation of North Carolina, has
resulted in the creation of more than 800,000 student information
accounts. He also noted that North Carolina's commitment to early
information has helped not only to increase the number of students
attending college in-state, but also to improve the state's
college-going rate. Similarly, the CollegeZone website operated by ISAC
has been developed with the intent of making CollegeZone the main source
for financial aid information in the state of Illinois. In addition to
the CollegeZone website, Illinois has also developed outreach centers at
community colleges to provide year-round financial aid information and
FAFSA application assistance to students and families.

Panelists also discussed the progress they have made in increasing the
number of financial aid applications being submitted on-line. In
particular, Mr. Butler noted that students seem to prefer the paperless
TAP application system. As evidence, he noted that during the 2001-2002
school year, only approximately 20 percent of total applicants used TAP
on the Web. To date this year, less than 10 percent of all TAP
applications have been submitted on paper. In order to increase the
number of on-line TAP applications, HESC provided New York residents
with a link to TAP on the Web at the end of their FAFSA on the Web
application and has created a system that continuously reminds students,
through both e-mail and postcard notifications, to submit the TAP
application on-line. Although some panelists cautioned that implementing
paperless delivery systems requires integrating various software systems
and can carry significant start-up costs, Mr. Butler also noted that New
York's electronic system would pay for itself in a few years through
cost savings resulting from decreased spending on paper and postage.

The panelists further discussed potential challenges associated with
implementing a paperless delivery system and the need to address these
challenges in designing a pilot. Dr. Brooks cited several ways the
federal and state delivery systems could be better integrated. For
example, he noted that the current system only allows states to
pre-populate demographic data on the on-line FAFSA, whereas states would
also like to pre-fill FAFSA on the Web with financial data from student
accounts. In addition, he suggested that states could further simplify
their application and delivery systems if they could add state-specific
questions to FAFSA on the Web without adding them to the entire FAFSA
and if they could have the choice of accepting either the auto-zero or
the SNT. Similarly, Mr. Butler noted that HESC was developing their own
PIN access codes for online TAP applicants because they could not get
permission from ED to link students' ED PINs to their TAP accounts.

Despite these implementation challenges, Ms. Theresa Antworth of the
National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs (NASSGAP)
also advocated in favor of pilot testing a paperless delivery system,
noting the success of such systems in New York, Illinois, and North
Carolina and the willingness of other states to develop such systems. In
addition, she argued that paperless systems should be phased in because
some states will need more time, money, and systems support than others
to implement such systems. She further noted that maintaining the
federal-state partnership in aid delivery is critical in order to avoid
the creation of multiple state forms. At the end of the session, Ms.
Antworth described the success they have had in Florida with moving to
an almost 100 percent paperless delivery system for the state
scholarship programs. Because this system predates FAFSA on the Web, she
noted that they have not yet integrated their website with the FAFSA in
the same way other states have.

This session also included a discussion of paperless delivery systems in
the context of the digital divide and the feasibility of using such
systems to provide earlier estimates of aid eligibility from multiple
sources. Ms. Antworth urged that care must be taken in developing early
estimates of financial aid eligibility to ensure that such estimates
serve as a carrot in attracting students to college, rather than a
potential source of confusion. Dr. Jennetten and Ms. Antworth also
related that while these systems can be successful and popular, care
must be taken not to overlook or disenfranchise those affected by the
digital divide. In discussions at the end of the session, however, the
panelists noted that they had not received many complaints about the
digital divide and had implemented systems to help address any such
divide. For example, Dr. Brooks noted that North Carolina had
implemented a toll free telephone number that people could use in
addition to the web-based services and that they have not yet heard
complaints about lack of access to their website from residents in rural
areas. Similarly, Mr. Butler commented that New York had not received an
indication that the digital divide is a significant issue, although New
York also plans on keeping paper applications available to applicants
who prefer to complete such applications.

Completing the discussion was Ms. Rebecca Antar of Rep. Emanuel's office
who provided a congressional perspective on paperless delivery systems.
Ms. Antar noted that piloting paperless systems has not been included in
current legislation, but that Rep. Emanuel and many other members of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce would be open to the idea and
that paperless systems would align well with Rep. Emanuel's
simplification goals. At the same time, Ms. Antar cautioned that while
paperless systems have the potential to simplify the FAFSA and reduce
the time it takes to complete the form, such systems would not solve all
of the problems associated with financial aid applications and that
families ultimately must be able to complete the form without any
outside assistance.

# Session IV: Creating a System of Early Financial Aid Information

During the last session of the hearing, several witnesses provided
testimony on strategies to simplify the financial aid process by
providing students and families with better and earlier information
about financial aid and college costs. Among the panelists, there was a
consensus on the need to provide students and families with tailored and
age-appropriate information as early as middle school. In addition to
highlighting the challenges associated with implementing this system,
each panelist recommended areas for improvement that often involved
partnerships with federal, state, and local organizations and
institutions. For example, Dr. Ann Coles, Director of the Pathways to
College Network, stressed the need for partnerships with other
organizations on the federal, state, and local levels in order to
increase successful marketing of existing financial aid programs.

While panelists stressed the importance of early information in
influencing students' aspirations and college preparation, several
witnesses testified that an early financial aid information system was
not a complete solution to the college access problem. Instead, to
ensure that more low- and moderate-income students enroll and persist in
postsecondary institutions, information needs to be coupled with
adequate need-based grant aid from federal, state, and institutional
sources. For example, Dr. Laura Perna, associate professor in the
College of Education at the University of Maryland, cautioned that an
early financial aid system would be ineffective without the assurance of
adequate financial aid to cover

college costs.

The session also addressed current research findings related to the
impact of financial aid on aspirations and plans for college. Dr. Perna
specifically addressed this issue, noting that while additional research
is still needed, existing studies confirm that students and parents have
inadequate information about college costs and financial aid. In
particular, research shows that the problem with the existing system of
early information is related to "quality" and not "quantity." In other
words, although a lot of information on financial aid is currently
available from multiple sources, this information is often not tailored
to meet the needs of students and families and is not conveyed in a
user-friendly format. In addition, she remarked that families encounter
language and technology barriers to accessing information.

Based on these research findings, Dr. Perna outlined several potential
strategies for addressing the shortcomings of existing early financial
aid programs. First, she stressed that differences in state financial
aid structures (e.g., merit-based aid versus need-based aid) and across
and within schools (i.e., school demographics, guidance counselor
ratios, and curricular tracking) make a one-size-fits-all approach
ineffective. Second, Dr. Perna recommended providing this information to
students earlier in the pipeline, as it is likely to have a positive
influence on college aspirations and plans. Third, because of the lack
of rigorous research on this topic, she commented on the need for
additional longitudinal research examining perceptions and awareness of
financial aid and college financing strategies across different groups.

Panelists also described local efforts to implement programs designed to
increase college access and provide earlier information about financial
aid. Ms. Yolanda Knight is the Assistant Director of the Department of
Postsecondary Education within the Chicago Public School System (CPS)
and Dr. Nicole Hurd administers the *College Guides* program, a new
college access initiative at the University of Virginia (UVA). Although
both programs are relatively new, both Dr. Hurd and Ms. Knight stress
the need for continued partnerships between federal and state agencies
and K-12 school systems.

Ms. Knight described some of the ways CPS has tried to provide all
students within the district with earlier financial aid information. CPS
is the third largest school district in the nation, with the majority of
its students coming from low-income and racial/ethnic minority
backgrounds. In their effort to increase students' readiness for
college, CPS focuses on providing students and parents with financial
aid and college preparation materials as early as middle school. Ms.
Knight also noted several challenges they have faced in implementing a
system of early awareness of financial aid. First, guidance counselors
do not provide consistent, reliable information, particularly for
students with special circumstances. She attributes this lapse in
communication to competing demands and inadequate training of
counselors. Secondly, financial aid center coordinators prefer to
provide services to seniors, stating there is no urgency for ninth,
tenth, and eleventh graders. Third, only 20 percent of seniors who
stated they planned to attend college took advantage of the financial
aid centers.

Dr. Hurd described some of the ways the *College Guides* program will
attempt to disseminate financial aid information to students and parents
earlier in the education pipeline. The *College Guides* program places
20 recent UVA graduates in public schools across Virginia to act as
college counselors and help students obtain financial aid information
and complete other tasks to prepare for college. The centerpiece of this
initiative is its focus on early awareness. Dr. Hurd explained that
although "guides" will be working primarily with high school students
and their parents, targeted outreach will also be provided to middle
schools and community centers. At present, the program has devised a
curriculum for grades seven through 12.

Panelists also discussed the need for more large-scale initiatives on
the federal and state level to disseminate early financial aid
information. Dr. Coles, who also directs college access programs at The
Education Resources Institute (TERI), discussed the extensive research
the Pathways to College Network has done on successful social marketing
campaigns. For example, from their analysis of over 100 state and
community-based early awareness campaigns, the Pathways to College
Network found several problems that limited the campaigns'
effectiveness. First, although the campaigns provided information, the
information was not conveyed in a manner that would change behaviors or
attitudes. In addition, the messages were not necessarily directed at
low-income and other underserved students. Third, there was no "call to
action" message in the campaigns, as very few campaigns explained
specific steps that students and families can take to ensure college
participation. Fourth, the messages were conveyed through inappropriate
media and outreach venues. Lastly, few campaigns focused on providing
information to parents and families. The Pathways to College Network is
currently working to help various states implement such campaigns around
college awareness and financial aid and has created a College Access
Marketing Toolbox that stakeholders can use to develop college access
marketing campaigns.

Finally, several panelists discussed the need to provide students with
special circumstances, such as students in foster care, with earlier and
better information regarding financial aid. For example, Dr. Perna
talked about the need for greater research regarding how students with
special circumstances perceive financial aid. Ms. Adrienne Hahn, the
Vice President of Public Policy at the Casey Family Programs, also
addressed this issue. Casey Family Programs is a foundation that aims to
improve the quality of foster care. Ms. Hahn echoed the sentiments of
other panelists who stressed the need to improve the existing system of
early financial aid information. She stressed that information to
students in foster and kinship care needs to be tailored to address the
students' particular needs and circumstances. She requested that
federal, state, and local non-profit and private agencies better
coordinate efforts to simplify the financial aid information and
application process for students in foster and kinship care.

The session ended with a discussion of the role guidance counselors and
mentors can and should play within any system of early financial aid
information. For example, Advisory Committee chairperson Mr. Clare
Cotton asked whether early intervention programs that work within school
systems are being created to do what guidance counselors would normally
do, if they were not saddled with excessively high counselor to student
ratios.

Ms. Knight discussed her department's efforts to influence district
policies regarding the role of guidance counselors in order to define
their role more closely with college access advising and outreach. In
addition, panelists commented that other types of mentors, including
teachers and community leaders, can also play an important role within a
system of early financial aid information. For example, Ms. Hahn noted
that providing students in foster care with adult mentors can help these
students not only enroll in college but persist to degree completion as
well.