Independent 

Undergraduates:

1999–2000

Postsecondary Education

Descriptive Analysis Report

U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2005–151 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
U.S. Department of Education 

Institute of Education Sciences 

NCES 2005–151 

Independent 

Undergraduates: 

1999–2000 

Postsecondary Education 

Descriptive Analysis Report 

September 2005 

Christina Chang Wei 

Stephanie Nevill 

Lutz Berkner 

MPR Associates, Inc. 

C. Dennis Carroll 

Project Officer 

National Center for 

Education Statistics 
U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences 

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Director

National Center for Education Statistics

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Acting Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, 

and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional 

mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of 

education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning 

and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical 

systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign countries. 

NCES activities are designed to address high-priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, 

complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and highquality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education 

policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public. Unless specifically noted, all information 

contained herein is in the public domain. 

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a 

variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating 

information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or 

report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to 

 National Center for Education Statistics 

 Institute of Education Sciences 

 U.S. Department of Education 

 1990 K Street NW 

 Washington, DC 20006-5651 

October 2005 

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov. 

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch. 

Suggested Citation 

Wei, C.C., Nevill, S., and Berkner, L. (2005). Independent Undergraduates: 1999–2000 (NCES 2005-151). 

U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

For ordering information on this report, write to 

 U.S. Department of Education 

 ED Pubs 

 P.O. Box 1398 

 Jessup, MD 20794-1398 

or call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.org. 

Content Contact

Aurora D’Amico 

(202) 502-7334 

aurora.d’amico@ed.gov
iii 

Executive Summary 

This report provides a comprehensive look at 

independent students who were enrolled in 

postsecondary education in the United States and 

Puerto Rico in 1999–2000. Under federal financial 

aid policy, parents have the primary responsibility 

for financing their children’s education, unless the 

student is considered to be financially independent 

of his or her parents. Independent students are 

assumed to be financially self-sufficient and no 

longer dependent upon their parents to support 

them or finance their education. They are either at 

an age at which they are expected to be financially 

independent, or they have family responsibilities 

(i.e., are married and/or have children) or other 

characteristics that require institutions and 

financial aid administrators to treat them as adults 

with certain needs that differ from those of 

dependent students. For federal financial aid 

purposes, undergraduate students automatically 

qualify for independent status if they are age 24 or 

older. Those younger than age 24 may qualify for 

independent status if they are married, have 

dependents of their own, are military veterans, or 

are orphans or wards of the court (figure A). In 

addition, some otherwise dependent students may 

be considered independent due to unusual personal 

circumstances. Financial aid administrators have 

the authority to use their “professional judgment” 

to make these determinations.1

 

1 Professional judgment must be used on a case-by-case basis. 

Often it involves circumstances in which the student does not 

live with his or her parents or the student and parents are 

estranged. The aid administrator must document the reasons 

for overriding the student’s dependency status, and the student 

may also need to provide documentation to show that he or 

she is self-supporting. 

This study uses data from the 1999–2000 

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study to 

compare independent and dependent students and 

distinguish among independent students based on 

family status and age. Independent students are 

categorized by their family responsibilities in the 

following manner: single, no children; married, no 

children; single parents; and married parents. 

Family responsibilities are taken into account 

when determining financial aid eligibility. This 

study presents in detail how these groups differ 

with respect to their demographic characteristics, 

where they attend college, whether they attend full 

time or part time, what they study, and how they 

finance their education. Standard t tests were used 

in the analysis to determine statistical significance 

at the p < .05 significance level. 

Who Are Independent Students? 

Just over one-half (52 percent) of all 

undergraduates were independent students in 

1999–2000 (figure 1). That year, they represented 

roughly two-thirds of community college students 

(64 percent) and part-time students (67 percent) 

(figures 3 and 1, respectively). The educational 

and life circumstances of independent students 

must be analyzed separately from those of 

dependent students because independent students 

have far more family and work responsibilities. In 

1999–2000, about one-half (53 percent) had 

dependents (figure 4), including one-fourth who 

were single parents (figure 5). (By definition, 

dependent students are not married and do not 

have dependents of their own.) Fifty-eight percent 

of independent students were employed full time
Executive Summary 

iv 

while enrolled, compared with 22 percent of 

dependent students (figure B). The majority (80 

percent) of independent students were enrolled 

part time, in comparison with 42 percent of 

dependent students. About two-thirds (67 percent) 

of independent students and about one-fourth (24 

percent) of dependent students had delayed 1 year 

or more after high school before starting 

postsecondary education; independent students 

were also less likely than dependent students to 

have earned a high school diploma (88 percent vs. 

97 percent) (table 2a). All of these characteristics 

have been identified as risk factors for persistence 

in postsecondary education (Horn and Premo 

1995). Without adequate financial and academic 

support, these responsibilities and risk factors can 

become obstacles to educational success. 

Demographic Characteristics of 

Independent Students 

About one-half (51 percent) of all independent 

students were age 30 or older; one-third (33 

percent) were between ages 24 and 29; and 16 

percent were younger than age 24 (table 2a). 

Among the youngest group, 90 percent were 

married, had dependents of their own, or both 

(table 4). Six percent of the independent students 

younger than age 24 did not meet any of the 

criteria for independence defined in the Higher 

Education Act, and were presumably determined 

to be independent by the professional judgment of 

a financial aid officer (table 1a). 

One-half (50 percent) came from families 

where neither parent had attended college,

Figure A.—Among independent undergraduates, percentage who met the various criteria used for determining 

Figure A.—independent status: 1999–2000

NOTE: Categories are not mutually exclusive. “Independent for other reason” includes those who did not meet any of the other criteria for

independence but were determined to be financially independent through the professional judgment of a financial aid administrator. Does not

include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates include students attending postsecondary

institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS:2000).

Independent students

84

53

46

8

1 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

24 or older Has dependents Married Veteran Orphan/

ward of the

court

Independent for

other reason

Percent
Executive Summary 

v 

compared with 27 percent of dependent students 

who were first-generation students (table 2a). 

Nearly 60 percent of independent students were 

women, compared with 53 percent of dependent 

students; independent students were also less 

likely to be White (64 percent vs. 71 percent) and 

more likely to be Black (15 percent vs. 9 percent). 

Independent students who were enrolled part 

time or for only part of the academic year were 

more likely than full-time independent students to 

have many of the characteristics of nontraditional 

students.2 Compared with full-time independent 

students, part-time independent students were 

more likely to be age 30 or older (55 percent vs. 

 

2 Horn (1996) defined nontraditional students as having one 

or more of the following characteristics: delayed enrollment 

in postsecondary education, part-time attendance, financial 

independence, full-time employment, having children, being a 

single parent, and not having obtained a high school diploma. 

35 percent), to be married (47 percent vs. 38 

percent), and to work full time while enrolled (65 

percent vs. 30 percent). Part-time independent 

students also were more likely to have delayed 

their entry into postsecondary education after high 

school (69 percent vs. 59 percent) and to have 

parents with only a high school education or less 

(51 percent vs. 45 percent). 

Independent Status by Age, Class 

Level, and Family Responsibilities 

This study found that the youngest (younger 

than age 24) and the oldest (age 30 or older) 

independent students were more likely than not to 

have family responsibilities (figure C). 

Independent students younger than age 24 were

Figure B.—Percentage of undergraduates with risk characteristics, by dependency status: 1999–2000

NOTE: Students were considered to be enrolled part time or part year if they were enrolled less than full time or attended full time for less than

9 months. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates include students 

attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS:2000).

22 24

3

42

0 0

58

67

12

80

53

24

0

20

40

60

80

100

 Worked 35

hours or more

per week

 Delayed

enrollment

 No high school

diploma

 Enrolled part

time

 Have children Single parent

Percent

Dependent Independent
Executive Summary 

vi 

more likely to have family responsibilities (90 

percent) than their counterparts in the older age 

groups because this is mainly how they qualify for 

independent status. Those between 24 and 29 were 

the least likely to have any family responsibilities 

(51 percent vs. 11 and 23 percent). Students age 30 

or older were the most likely group to be married 

with children (40 percent) (figure 5). 

As with age, class level was related directly to 

independent status, among students enrolled in 4-

year institutions. As students progressed to higher 

class levels, they were more likely to be older and 

to be married. About one-fourth (26 percent) of 

freshmen and sophomores were independent 

students, but among college seniors, about onehalf (49 percent) were independent (table 5). 

Seniors were also the group with the largest 

percentage of independent students who were 

single and had no dependents (20 percent) because 

they were able to qualify on the basis of age alone. 

Compared with dependent students, 

independent students age 24 or older who had no 

family responsibilities (that is, they were single 

with no dependents) were more likely to have 

characteristics that define nontraditional students. 

They appeared to be more self-sufficient than 

dependent students as they were more likely to 

work full time while enrolled (57 percent vs. 22 

percent) (table 6b). They were also more likely to 

attend part time (81 percent vs. 42 percent), to 

enroll at a public 2-year institution (54 percent vs. 

34 percent), and to have delayed their enrollment 

after high school (65 percent vs. 24 percent). 

Income 

The median annual income of independent 

students in 1998 was about $27,000 (table 11a). 

Part-time students (who were more likely to work) 

and married students (whose spouses contribute to 

Figure C.—Percentage distribution of independent undergraduates by family responsibilities, by age category: 1999–2000

NOTE: “Family responsibilities” is defined as being married, having dependents, or both. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates include students attending 

postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS:2000).

11

51

23

90

49

77

0

20

40

60

80

100

 Younger than 24 24 - 29 30 or older

Percent

Single with no dependents Have family responsibilities

24–29
Executive Summary 

vii 

their earnings) had the highest incomes. One-half 

(50 percent) of married part-time students had 

incomes above $50,000. By contrast, more than 

one-half (54–58 percent) of full-time single 

independent students had incomes of $13,000 or 

below. Almost one-third (29 percent) of all 

independent students were below 125 percent of 

the 1998 federal poverty level (calculated from 

figure D). Among independent students who were 

single parents, about one-half (48 percent) were 

below this poverty level. 

Middle-income ($13,001–$50,000) independent 

students who had children were more likely to 

receive grants than those who did not have 

children (table 11c). Independent students who did 

not have children were more likely to receive 

loans, if they had incomes that were below the 

median ($0–$27,000). 

 Education Financing 

Independent students are more likely to enroll 

in lower tuition institutions than dependent 

students. In 1999–2000, more than one-half (56 

percent) of all independent students attended the 

lowest priced institutions—public 2-year 

institutions, also known as community colleges 

(figure 2 and table 9). They were also more likely 

to choose 4-year institutions that specialized in

Figure D.—Percentage of independent undergraduates with incomes below 125 percent of the poverty level, by

Figure C.—independent student category: 1999–2000

NOTE: The average income cutoff at 125 percent of the poverty level was $21,286 ($17,029 x 1.25) in 1999 for a family of four people. From

the U.S. Census Bureau website. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates

include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS:2000).

32

48

12

20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Single, no dependents Single parents Married, no dependents Married parents

Percent
Executive Summary 

viii 

career-related fields (table 7) and that charged 

lower tuition than research and doctoral 

universities (table 10). 

Independent students were less likely to apply 

for financial aid than dependent students (61 

percent vs. 71 percent) (table 14), and were less 

likely to submit a Free Application for Federal 

Student Aid (FAFSA) before the typical May 1 

priority deadline for receiving state and 

institutional grant aid (45 percent vs. 67 percent) 

(figure E). Late applicants were more likely to 

enroll at lower cost community colleges part time, 

and were less likely to be low-income (table 17). 

Among those who did apply for financial aid, 

about 85 percent received some type of assistance 

(table 14). Compared with dependent students, 

independent students who applied for financial aid 

were more likely to receive federal Pell Grants (61 

percent vs. 34 percent) (table 20), but were less 

likely to receive state grants (19 percent vs. 24 

percent) and institutional grants (15 percent vs. 35 

percent) (table 15). Independent students also were 

less likely to take out a Stafford loan (51 percent 

vs. 58 percent). However, those who did take out 

loans borrowed more, on average, than dependent 

students ($5,500 vs. $3,800) (table 20). This was 

in part because independent students had higher 

annual federal student loan limits than dependent 

students and were more likely to take out a 

combination of subsidized and unsubsidized 

Stafford loans (31 percent vs. 13 percent) (figure 

F). 

Independent students were more likely than 

dependent students to use a variety of other 

Figure E.—Among undergraduates enrolled in fall 1999, percentage distribution of those who submitted a Free

Figure C.—Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), by application date and dependency status: 1999–2000

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000

academic year. Estimates include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS:2000).

67

45

33

55

0

20

40

60

80

100

 Dependent Independent

Percent

Submitted FAFSA in

April 1999 or earlier

Submitted FAFSA in

May 1999 or later
Executive Summary 

ix 

resources in addition to financial aid to pay for 

their education. They were more likely than 

dependent students to receive tuition aid from 

employers (14 percent vs. 3 percent) and, among 

those at 4-year institutions, were more likely to 

claim a Hope or Lifetime Learning federal tax 

credit (25 and 26 percent vs. 16 and 17 percent) 

(table 21). Also, a greater percentage of 

independent students carried a credit card balance 

(46 percent vs. 29 percent), and among those who 

did so, the average amount of the balance was 

higher ($3,800 vs. $1,900). This study could not 

determine, however, the extent to which credit 

card debt may have been used to finance students’ 

educational expenses. 

Financial Aid by Type of Institution 

Independent students attending private forprofit less-than-4-year institutions were more 

likely than those at other types of institutions to 

apply for federal financial aid (89 percent vs. 29–

53 percent) and, among applicants, were more 

likely to receive Pell Grants (71 percent vs. 54–62 

percent at the other types of institutions) and take 

out both subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford 

loans (62 percent vs. 10–44 percent) (table 20). 

Compared with their counterparts at other types 

of institutions, independent students at private notfor-profit 4-year institutions who applied for 

federal aid were the least likely to receive Pell 

Grants (54 percent vs. 61–71 percent); however, 

they borrowed the largest amounts from the 

Stafford loan programs ($6,800 vs. $3,500–

Figure F.—Among undergraduates who applied for federal aid, percentage receiving Stafford loans, by Stafford loan type

Figure F.—and dependency status: 1999–2000

NOTE: Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates include students attending

postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS:2000).

33

13 13 16

4

31

0

20

40

60

80

100

Received subsidized Stafford

loans only

Received unsubsidized Stafford

loans only

Received both subsidized and

unsubsidized Stafford loans

Percent

 Dependent Independent
Executive Summary 

x 

$5,700) (table 20) and carried the highest credit 

card debt ($4,400 vs. $3,000–$3,800) (table 21). 

These students were also the most likely to receive 

financial aid from an employer (25 percent vs. 3–

13 percent) (table 21). Compared with those 

enrolled at public 4-year institutions, independent 

students attending private not-for-profit 

institutions were more likely to be age 30 or older 

(55 percent vs. 40 percent), married (49 percent vs. 

40 percent), and employed full time (65 percent 

vs. 48 percent) (table 2b). 

Independent students attending public 2-year 

institutions, where students pay a lower average 

tuition than that at other institutions ($1,400 vs. 

$3,600–$9,900) (table 9), were the least likely to 

apply for financial aid (50 percent vs. 68–95 

percent) (table 15) and also received the smallest 

average amount of aid ($3,400 vs. $7,200–$9,700) 

(table 9). 

Conclusion 

While independent status is determined 

primarily by age, what truly characterizes 

independent students and sets them apart from 

dependent students are their work and family 

responsibilities. Independent students who had no 

family responsibilities also appeared to be more 

self-sufficient than dependent students in at least 

one important way: they were more likely to work 

full time while enrolled (57 percent vs. 22 percent) 

(table 6b). 

The types and amounts of aid for which 

independent students apply and which they receive 

depend largely upon their family and work 

responsibilities, attendance status, and where they 

enroll. In short, their life circumstances, as much 

as their academic and career goals, work together 

to shape their varied needs. 
xi 

Foreword 

This report provides a profile of undergraduates who were considered financially 

independent for the purpose of analyzing their financial aid need during the 1999–2000 academic 

year. The primary data source for this report was the 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000). As a nationally representative sample of undergraduates in 

postsecondary education, NPSAS provides information on students’ demographic characteristics, 

enrollment, and financial aid. NPSAS includes financial information on aid applicants from the 

Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FASFA), and for federal loan recipients, includes 

longitudinal loan data from the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS). The NPSAS:2000 

survey is one of five in a series of surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Education to 

study how students and their families finance their postsecondary education. 

The report includes a description of the proportions of independent undergraduates enrolled 

in different types of postsecondary institutions and compares them with dependent students. 

Independent students are also analyzed with respect to their family responsibilities, attendance 

status, demographic and enrollment characteristics, fields of study, income, price of attendance, 

and various types and amounts of financial aid received. 

The NCES Data Analysis System (DAS) was used to generate the estimates that were used 

and presented in this report. The DAS is a microcomputer application that allows users to specify 

and analyze data from the various NPSAS surveys. Design-adjusted standard errors are available 

through the DAS so that users can test for statistical significance of differences between 

estimates. Readers can refer to appendix B of this report for more information on the DAS. 
xii 

Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to express their gratitude to all who contributed to the production of 

this report, as their assistance has been invaluable. At MPR Associates, Laura Horn reviewed 

and provided helpful comments on the initial drafts. Annabelle Yang, Francesca Tussing, Wes 

Nations, and Barbara Kridl of the production staff produced the tables and figures in the report 

and formatted the text. Andrea Livingston edited the final text. 

At NCES, Dennis Carroll provided thorough and helpful guidance from the beginning 

stages and throughout the production of this report. Paula Knepper provided a comprehensive 

technical and substantive review of the first draft. Bruce Taylor suggested a number of useful 

edits to a later version. Daniel Goldenberg (Planning and Evaluation Service of the U.S. 

Department of Education), Jacqueline King (American Council on Education), and Tricia 

Grimes (Minnesota Higher Education Services) were instrumental in reviewing an early draft. 

Comments provided by Clifford Adelman of the Office of Vocational and Adult Education 

enhanced the analysis. 

Others who reviewed the report include Fraser Ireland and Gerard Rainville of Education 

Statistics Services Institute, who provided a technical review. Duc-Le To of the Institute of 

Education Sciences coordinated the peer review and provided additional comments on the final 

draft. 
xiii 

Contents 

Page 

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. iii 

Foreword.................................................................................................................................... xi 

Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................... xii 

List of Tables.............................................................................................................................. xiv 

List of Figures............................................................................................................................ xvii 

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1 

Organization of the Report.................................................................................................... 3 

Data Sources and Methodology ............................................................................................ 3 

Overview of Independent Students.......................................................................................... 5 

Criteria for Determining Independent Status ........................................................................ 7 

Demographic and Enrollment Characteristics of Dependent and Independent 

Undergraduates .................................................................................................................. 11 

Categories of Independent Students...................................................................................... 19 

Field of Study and Institution Type....................................................................................... 29 

Education Financing ................................................................................................................. 33 

Income and Expected Family Contribution (EFC) ............................................................... 36 

Percentage Below Poverty Level and Government Aid Received........................................ 40 

Financial Aid......................................................................................................................... 40 

Financial Aid Application Deadlines and Receipt of Aid..................................................... 46 

Federal Financial Aid Programs............................................................................................ 51 

Other Forms of Financing ..................................................................................................... 56 

Conclusions................................................................................................................................ 59 

References.................................................................................................................................. 61 

Appendix A—Glossary ............................................................................................................. A-1 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology .................................................................. B-1 
xiv 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

1a Percentage of independent undergraduates who met the various criteria used for 

determining independent status, by attendance status and age: 1999–2000 ................... 10 

1b Percentage of independent undergraduates who met the various criteria used for 

determining independent status, by type of institution and age: 1999–2000.................. 12 

2a Percentage distribution (by columns) of undergraduates by attendance status, 

dependency status, and selected student characteristics: 1999–2000 ............................. 13 

2b Percentage distribution (by columns) of undergraduates by type of institution, 

dependency status, and selected student characteristics: 1999–2000 ............................. 17 

3 Percentage distribution of independent students by family responsibilities and type of 

institution: 1999–2000..................................................................................................... 19 

4 Percentage distribution of independent undergraduates by family responsibilities and 

age: 1999–2000 ............................................................................................................... 21 

5 Among undergraduates enrolled at 4-year institutions, percentage distribution by 

dependency status, family responsibilities, attendance status, and class level: 1999–

2000................................................................................................................................. 22 

6a Percentage distribution (by columns) of independent undergraduates by selected 

student characteristics and family responsibilities: 1999–2000...................................... 24 

6b Percentage distribution (by columns) of undergraduates by selected student 

characteristics, family responsibilities, dependency status, and age: 1999–2000........... 27 

7 Percentage distribution of undergraduate students by field of study, type of 

institution, and dependency status: 1999–2000............................................................... 30 

8 Percentage distribution of undergraduates by Carnegie classification and type of 

4-year institution, attendance status, and dependency status: 1999–2000 ...................... 31 

9 Average tuition, nontuition expenses, total price, financial aid, and net price for 

dependent and independent full-time, full-year undergraduates, by type of institution: 

1999–2000....................................................................................................................... 34 
List of Tables

xv 

Table Page 

10 Average tuition among full-time, full-year undergraduate students enrolled in 

postsecondary institutions by Carnegie classification, control of institution, and 

dependency status: 1999–2000........................................................................................ 35 

11a Among independent undergraduates, median income, percentage distribution by 

income level, and average federal expected family contribution (EFC), by attendance 

status and family responsibilities: 1999–2000 ................................................................ 37 

11b Among independent undergraduates, median income, percentage distribution by 

income level, and average federal expected family contribution (EFC), by type of 

institution and family responsibilities: 1999–2000......................................................... 38 

11c Among independent undergraduates, percentage who applied for financial aid and, 

among those who applied, percentage who received any aid, grants, or loans, and the 

average amounts received, by income level and family responsibilities: 1999–2000 .... 39 

12 Among independent students, percentage who had incomes below 125 percent of the 

poverty level and percentage who received various untaxed benefits, by type of 

institution and family responsibilities: 1999–2000......................................................... 41 

13 Among independent undergraduate students who had dependents, the average number 

of dependents they had who were under the age of 12 and percentage with monthly 

childcare expenses, by marital status: 1999–2000 .......................................................... 42 

14 Percentage of undergraduate students who applied for financial aid and, among those 

who applied, percentage who received various types of aid and the average amounts 

received, by attendance status, dependency status, and family responsibilities: 1999–

2000................................................................................................................................. 43 

15 Percentage of undergraduates who applied for financial aid and, among those who 

applied, percentage receiving grants and average amounts received, by type of 

institution, dependency status, and family responsibilities: 1999–2000......................... 44 

16 Percentage of undergraduates enrolled in the fall 1999 term and, among those 

enrolled, the percentage distribution for date of submission of a Free Application for 

Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) during 1999, by level of institution and dependency 

status: 1999–2000............................................................................................................ 49 

17 Percentage distribution of undergraduate students who filed a Free Application for 

Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) before September 30, 1999, by type of institution, 

income level, and attendance status, by application date and dependency status: 

1999–2000....................................................................................................................... 50 
List of Tables

xvi 

Table Page 

18 Among undergraduates who submitted a Free Application for Federal Student Aid 

(FAFSA) before September 30, 1999, percentage who received various types of 

financial aid, by application date and dependency status: 1999–2000 ........................... 51 

19 Among undergraduates enrolled in the fall 1999 term who submitted a Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) during 1999, percentage who received 

federal, state, and institutional grants, and the average amounts they received, by 

submission date, level of institution, and dependency status: 1999–2000...................... 52 

20 Percentage of undergraduate students who applied for federal aid and, among those 

who applied, the percentage receiving Pell Grants and Stafford loans, and the average 

amount received per recipient, by type of institution, dependency status, and family 

responsibilities: 1999–2000............................................................................................. 54 

21 Percentage of undergraduates who used other forms of financing and the average 

credit balance, by type of institution and dependency status: 1999–2000...................... 57 

Appendix B 

B-1 Standard errors for table 6a: Percentage distribution (by columns) of independent 

undergraduates by selected student characteristics and family responsibilities: 

1999–2000....................................................................................................................... B-4 
xvii 

List of Figures 

Figure Page 

Executive Summary 

A Among independent undergraduates, percentage who met the various criteria used for 

determining independent status: 1999–2000................................................................... iv 

B Percentage of undergraduates with risk characteristics, by dependency status: 1999–

2000................................................................................................................................. v 

C Percentage distribution of independent undergraduates by family responsibilities, by 

age category: 1999–2000 ................................................................................................ vi 

D Percentage of independent undergraduates with incomes below 125 percent of the 

poverty level, by independent student category: 1999–2000.......................................... vii 

E Among undergraduates enrolled in fall 1999, percentage distribution of those who 

submitted a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), by application date 

and dependency status: 1999–2000................................................................................. viii 

F Among undergraduates who applied for federal aid, percentage receiving Stafford 

loans, by Stafford loan type and dependency status: 1999–2000 ................................... ix 

Text 

1 Percentage distribution of undergraduate students by dependency and attendance 

status: 1999–2000............................................................................................................ 6

2 Percentage distribution of undergraduates by type of institution and attendance status: 

1999–2000....................................................................................................................... 7 

3 Percentage distribution of undergraduate students by dependency status and type of 

institution: 1999–2000..................................................................................................... 8 

4 Among independent undergraduates, percentage who met the various criteria used for 

determining independent status: 1999–2000................................................................... 9 

5 Percentage distribution of independent undergraduates by family responsibilities and 

age category: 1999–2000 ................................................................................................ 21 
List of Figures

xviii 

Figure Page 

6 Percentage distribution of independent undergraduates by level of institution, by age 

and whether they have children or other dependents: 1999–2000.................................. 26 

7 Among independent undergraduates who applied for financial aid, percentage who 

received grants and loans, by marital status and whether one had dependents: 1999–

2000................................................................................................................................. 47 

8 Among undergraduate students who applied for financial aid, percentage who 

received federal, state, and institutional grant aid, by dependency status: 1999–2000... 48 
1 

Introduction 

When evaluating an undergraduate student’s eligibility for financial aid, a student’s 

dependency status is the first determination that is made. This identifies who has primary 

responsibility for financing an individual’s educational expenses and, therefore, whose income 

should be taken into consideration in need analysis. Whether the parents of students or students 

themselves are financially responsible generally depends on whether the student can be 

considered a self-supporting adult. Students qualify as financially independent based on factors 

such as having families of their own to support, or having reached a particular age. 

For dependent students, parental income is the major factor in determining need. The 

federal government considers parents to have primary responsibility for financing a dependent 

student’s postsecondary education. Independent students, however, are themselves responsible 

for their educational expenses. Independent students can be eligible for and receive need-based 

aid such as Pell Grants at a higher rate than dependent students. Only the independent student’s 

income plus any income from a spouse are used to determine need. This can result in an 

increased eligibility for need-based aid, particularly among those with dependents of their own. 

In addition, all independent students, regardless of whether they have family responsibilities, 

have the opportunity to take out larger student loans. 

A fundamental issue in need analysis for financial aid is under what circumstances should 

undergraduate students be assumed to be financially self-sufficient and no longer reliant on their 

parents for support. That is, when can they be considered independent? Under current federal 

financial aid policy, all students age 24 or older are assumed to be financially independent of 

their parents. Undergraduate students younger than age 24 may also be considered independent if 

they are married, have dependents of their own, are military veterans, or are orphans or wards of 

the court. In addition, financial aid administrators have the authority to use “professional 

judgment” to treat an otherwise dependent student as an independent student due to unusual 

circumstances.1 The federal definition of independence has changed several times in an attempt 

to establish equitable and verifiable criteria for determining dependency status. For example, the 

criteria established by the Higher Education Act (HEA) amendments of 1986 were based on the 

 

1 Professional judgment must be used on a case-by-case basis. Often it involves circumstances in which the student does not live

with his or her parents or the student and parents are estranged. The aid administrator must document the reasons for overriding 

the student’s dependency status, and the student may also need to provide documentation to show that he or she is selfsupporting. 
Introduction

2 

student’s tax status and own resources. Between 1986 and 1992, students were asked whether 

they were claimed as tax exemptions by their parents and if they had resources of at least $4,000 

in the 2 calendar years before the award year. The 1992 HEA amendments eliminated these 

questions from the financial aid application, and the two criteria are no longer considered when 

determining dependency status.2

The percentage of all undergraduates who are considered financially independent has been 

about 50 percent since 1989–90 even though the demographic characteristics of undergraduate 

students have not always remained the same. Horn (1996) found an increase in the enrollment of 

older-than-typical3 students between 1986 and 1992 (from 54 percent to 59 percent), but the 

increase had taken place primarily among those younger than age 24, whose proportions grew 

from one-quarter to one-third of all undergraduates during this period. There also was an 

increase in the percentage of students who had at least two, and sometimes three, characteristics 

defining them as “nontraditional” and who were at risk of not attaining their educational goals: 

having delayed their enrollment, having no high school diploma, being financially independent, 

having dependents other than a spouse, being a single parent, working full time while enrolled, 

or attending part time. 

Previous studies have also found that older (age 24 or older) students are more likely to 

enroll in public 2-year institutions, to work full time, and to attend college exclusively part time 

(Horn, Peter, and Rooney 2002). Choy and Premo (1995) observed that independent students are 

also less likely than younger students to receive financial aid and that only 24 percent of these 

students said that financial aid was a very important factor in choosing which college to attend. 

However, when making their decisions, older students give more weight to work and home life 

considerations than do younger students. 

Although independent students are more likely to attend college part time, those who attend 

full time generally have very low incomes and are therefore eligible for large amounts of needbased financial aid, making the definition of independence an important policy issue (Berkner et 

al. 2002). The reason for distinguishing between dependent and independent students in need 

analysis is that independent students are deemed to be fundamentally different from dependent 

students in terms of their financial needs. However, independent students themselves are not a 

homogeneous group, and wide variations in life circumstances and financial need exist 

depending on age, income, marital status, whether they have children, and the type of institution 

attended. The intent of this report is to provide a better understanding of the differences among 

 

2 National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA) (2004). 

3 “Older-than-typical” was defined in that study as students who were 20 or older in their first year, 21 or older in their second 

year, 22 or older in their third year, or 23 or older in any year. 
Introduction

3 

independent students who were enrolled in postsecondary institutions during the 1999–2000 

academic year. 

Organization of the Report 

The first section of this report provides a description of the criteria used to determine 

independent status. The percentage of independent students who met each of these criteria are 

analyzed by age, attendance status, and institution type. Independent and dependent students are 

compared in terms of their attendance status, demographic and enrollment characteristics, and 

fields of study. Independent students are also examined with respect to their likelihood of having 

family responsibilities by age and class level, and their demographic and enrollment differences 

are analyzed by the criteria for which they qualify for independent status. The second section of 

the report on education financing provides comparisons between dependent and independent 

students, and among independent students, includes analyses of income, price of attendance, and 

the various types and amounts of financial aid received. Many of the analyses throughout the 

report compare students by attendance status. The comparison groups have been defined as “fulltime, full-year” students and “part-time or part-year” students. For convenience, the terms are 

referred to as “full-time” and “part-time” students in the report. 

Data Sources and Methodology 

This report uses data from the 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS:2000). As a nationally representative sample of undergraduates in postsecondary 

education, NPSAS provides information on students’ demographic characteristics, enrollment, 

and financial aid. It also includes financial information on aid applicants from the Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid (FASFA), and for federal loan recipients, includes 

longitudinal loan data from the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS). The NPSAS 

survey, which is carried out every 3 to 4 years, targets the population of all students in Title IV 

institutions in the United States or Puerto Rico between July 1 and June 30 in the given academic 

year and represents more than 16 million undergraduates. Information is collected from 

institutions, student interviews, and government data files. For NPSAS:2000, the institutional 

sampling frame is based on the 1998–99 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 

Institutional Characteristics (IPEDS-IC) file. Each sampled institution provides a student list. In 

NPSAS:2000, about 62,000 students were sampled, among whom about 50,000 were 

undergraduates. Of these students, 44,500 students completed a Computer Assisted Telephone 

Interview (CATI) or a Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI). The weighted student 

interview response rate for NPSAS:2000 was 72 percent, and the weighted overall response rate 
Introduction

4 

was 66 percent (taking into account an institution response rate of 91 percent). All the variables 

used in this report had item response rates above 85 percent (see appendix B for more detail 

about bias analysis and adjustment for bias). For this report, the sample was limited to U.S. 

citizens and resident aliens who were attending one institution during the 1999–2000 academic 

year. 

 The comparisons in this study focus on differences between independent and dependent 

students and among independent students by category. Standard t tests were used in the analysis 

to determine statistical significance. Statements throughout this report are supported by statistical 

conclusions drawn at the p < .05 significance level.
5 

Overview of Independent Students 

Just over one-half (52 percent) of all undergraduates qualified as independent for financial 

aid purposes in 1999–2000 (figure 1). This includes about two-thirds (67 percent) of all part-time 

students and about one-fourth (26 percent) of all full-time students. Under federal need analysis 

methodology, the parental incomes of independent students are not included when determining 

need eligibility and independent students can therefore qualify for more federal need-based aid. 

With such a large proportion of students who are considered independent, their eligibility for and 

likelihood of receiving aid are important issues in postsecondary financing. This report describes 

how students qualify for independent status and the characteristics that make them different from 

dependent students. As discussed in detail below, independent students are more likely to have 

family responsibilities, to work full time while they are enrolled, to attend part time, and to differ 

from dependent students in a number of other ways as well. Dependent students, by definition, 

do not have any family responsibilities of their own and are not as likely to work full time. The 

questions addressed in this study include: To what extent are students qualifying for independent 

status based on age as opposed to having family responsibilities? How do independent students 

with varying levels of family responsibilities differ from dependent students and from each other 

in terms of their demographic and enrollment characteristics? What types and amounts of 

financial aid do they receive and how does that vary by their family responsibilities? 

Major differences between independent and dependent students can be found in whether 

they enroll full time or part time and in the types of institutions they attend. More than threefourths (80 percent) of independent students were enrolled part time or for only part of the 

academic year in 1999–2000, compared with 42 percent of all dependent students. Independent 

students were more likely to attend public 2-year institutions than any other type of institution: 

about one-half (56 percent) were enrolled in public 2-year institutions, compared with about onethird (34 percent) of dependent students (figure 2). Regardless of where they enrolled, however, 

independent students constituted sizeable proportions of undergraduate student populations 

almost everywhere (figure 3): they made up the majority of undergraduates at private for-profit 

less-than-4-year (74 percent) and public 2-year (64 percent) institutions and represented more 

than one-third (37 percent) of all undergraduates at 4-year institutions. 
Overview of Independent Students

6 

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of undergraduate students by dependency and attendance status:

Figure 1. 1999–2000

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Students were considered to be enrolled full time, full year if they

attended full time for 9 months or more; they were considered part time or part year if they were enrolled less than full time 

or attended full time for less than 9 months. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 

academic year. Estimates include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are

available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

26

67

74

33

52

49

0

20

40

60

80

100

All students Full-time,

full-year

Part-time or

part-year

Percent

Dependent

Independent

Attendance status

62

42

80

38

58

20

0

20

40

60

80

100

All students Dependent Independent

Percent

Full-time, full-year

Part-time or part-year

Dependency status
Overview of Independent Students

7 

Criteria for Determining Independent Status 

Student characteristics are used in need analysis to identify those who can be regarded as 

financially independent, and the most common criteria are age and family responsibilities. 

Among all independent undergraduates enrolled in postsecondary education in 1999–2000, age 

was the single criterion met by the largest percentage of students, with 84 percent of independent 

students at age 24 or older (figure 4 and table 1a). More than one-half (53 percent) of all 

independent undergraduates had dependents of their own, 46 percent were married, 8 percent 

were veterans, and about 1 percent were orphans or wards of the court. About 1 percent of all 

independent students did not meet any of these criteria and were presumably determined to be 

independent through the professional judgment of a financial aid officer. Part-time independent 

students differed from full-time independent students in that they were more likely to be older 

(age 24 or older) (86 percent vs. 75 percent) or married (47 percent vs. 38 percent). 

Figure 2. Percentage distribution of undergraduates by type of institution and attendance status: 1999–2000

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Students were considered to be enrolled full time, full year if they

attended full time for 9 months or more; they were considered part time or part year if they were enrolled less than full time 

or attended full time for less than 9 months. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 

academic year. Estimates include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are

available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

19 11

16

9

34

56 31 61

43

24

39

21

8 6 6 2 0

20

40

60

80

100

Dependent All students Full-time Part-time

Percent

Public 4-year

Public 2-year

Private not-for-profit 4-year

Private for-profit less-than-4-

year

Other

Independent

233 6
Overview of Independent Students

8 

Independent students were divided into three basic age categories in this study—younger 

than 24, 24–29, and 30 or older—and were analyzed with respect to what proportions within 

each age group also met the other criteria for independent status. About three-fourths (73 

percent) of the youngest independent students (younger than age 24) had dependents of their 

own,4 and about one-third (32 percent) of them were married. The relatively high percentage of 

parents in this particular group reflects the federal policy for determining independent status. 

Having children or being married are the two major ways in which students can qualify for 

independent status at this age. However, 6 percent of independent students who were younger 

than 24 did not meet any of these requirements and were presumably determined to be 

independent through professional judgment. 

 

4 “Dependents” refers to dependents other than a spouse. 

Figure 3. Percentage distribution of undergraduate students by dependency status and type of institution:

Figure 3. 1999–2000

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the

1999–2000 academic year. Estimates include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables

are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

37 37

64

74

63 63

36 26

0

20

40

60

80

100

Public 4-year Private notfor-profit

4-year

Public 2-year Private forprofit lessthan-4-year 

Percent

Dependent

Independent
Overview of Independent Students

9 

Figure 4. Among independent undergraduates, percentage who met the various criteria used for

Figure 4. determining independent status: 1999–2000

† Not applicable.

NOTE: Categories are not mutually exclusive. “Independent for other reason” includes those who did not meet any of the other

criteria for independence but were determined to be financially independent through the professional judgment of a financial aid

administrator. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates

include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

All independent students

84

53

46

8

1 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

24 or older Has

dependents

Married Veteran Orphan/

ward of the

court

Independent

for other

reason

Percent

Independent students younger than 24

72

32

2 5 6

†

0

20

40

60

80

100

24 or older Has

dependents

Married Veteran Orphan/

ward of the

court

Independent

for other

reason

Percent
Overview of Independent Students

10 

Independent students in the next age group (24–29) were the least likely to have 

dependents among the different age categories (36 percent vs. 73 percent of those younger than 

age 24 and 58 percent of those age 30 or older). Compared with the younger group, all of the 

students in this age category could qualify for independent status because they were 24 or older, 

including all who were single with no dependents of their own. Independent students 30 or older 

were the most likely of all the age groups to be married (59 percent vs. 31 and 32 percent). 

Table 1a. Percentage of independent undergraduates who met the various criteria used for determining

Table 1a. independent status, by attendance status and age: 1999–2000

Orphan Independent

Has or ward of for other

Age 24 or older dependents Married Veteran the court reason

 Total

 Total excluding Puerto Rico 84.4 52.8 45.7 8.3 0.5 1.0

 Total 84.3 53.0 45.7 8.2 0.6 1.0

Age as of 12/31/99

 Younger than 24 † 72.5 32.4 2.4 4.9 6.2

 24–29 100.0 36.0 30.8 7.3 † †

 30 or older 100.0 57.9 59.2 10.7 † †

 Full-time, full-year 

 Total 75.4 54.8 38.4 9.0 1.1 2.1

Age as of 12/31/99

 Younger than 24 † 66.8 29.2 3.1 5.7 8.7

 24–29 100.0 36.9 29.6 9.6 † †

 30 or older 100.0 66.8 55.0 12.2 † †

 Part-time or part-year

 Total 86.4 52.6 47.4 8.0 0.4 0.7

Age as of 12/31/99

 Younger than 24 † 75.0 33.8 2.0 4.5 5.1

 24–29 100.0 35.7 31.2 6.5 † †

 30 or older 100.0 56.5 59.8 10.4 † †

† Not applicable.

NOTE: Categories are not mutually exclusive. Students were considered to be enrolled full time, full year if they attended full

time for 9 months or more; they were considered part time or part year if they were enrolled less than full time or attended full

time for less than 9 months. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year.

Estimates in the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).
Overview of Independent Students

11 

Students at different types of institutions qualified for independent status in different ways. 

For instance, independent students who were enrolled at private for-profit less-than-4-year 

institutions were the most likely to have qualified for independent status because they had 

dependents of their own (64 percent) (table 1b). At public 2-year institutions, independent 

students who were younger than 24 were less likely than those attending other types of 

institutions to qualify as independent for other reasons (i.e., professional judgment) (3 percent 

versus 8–11 percent). This may be related to the lower percentage of aid applicants among 

community college students.5 Among students younger than 24 who did not apply for aid, there 

may have been some who would have qualified for independent status through professional 

judgment. 

Demographic and Enrollment Characteristics of Dependent and Independent 

Undergraduates 

This section includes a description of the major differences between dependent and 

independent students by age and family responsibilities—also the major criteria for determining 

financial independence—and other demographic and enrollment characteristics, including 

gender, race, parental education, employment status, residence, delayed enrollment, and receipt 

of a high school diploma. Comparisons are made between dependent and independent students 

and among independent students by attendance status (full-time and part-time) and the type of 

institution attended. 

Age and Family Responsibilities: Characteristics Defining Financial Independence 

In 1999–2000, about one-half (51 percent) of all independent students were age 30 or older, 

while one-third (33 percent) were ages 24–29 (table 2a). Sixteen percent of all independent 

students were younger than age 24 because they met one or more of the other criteria for 

independent status, such as being married or having children. By definition, all dependent 

students are younger than 24. Age varied by attendance status for independent students, with 

part-time students being older than full-time students. Fifty-five percent of part-time independent 

students were 30 or older, compared with 35 percent of full-time independent students. 

 

5 Independent students enrolled in public 2-year institutions were less likely to apply for aid than those enrolled at any of the 

other institutions analyzed separately in this study (50 percent vs. 68–94 percent) (table 15). 
Overview of Independent Students

12 

Table 1b. Percentage of independent undergraduates who met the various criteria used for determining

Table 1b. independent status, by type of institution and age: 1999–2000

Orphan Independent

Has or ward of for other

Age 24 or older dependents Married Veteran the court reason

 Total

 Total excluding Puerto Rico 84.4 52.8 45.7 8.3 0.5 1.0

 Total 84.3 53.0 45.7 8.2 0.6 1.0

Age as of 12/31/99

 Younger than 24 † 72.5 32.4 2.4 4.9 6.2

 24–29 100.0 36.0 30.8 7.3 † †

 30 or older 100.0 57.9 59.2 10.7 † †

 Public 4-year

 Total 81.5 47.2 39.9 7.0 0.8 1.5

Age as of 12/31/99

 Younger than 24 † 63.7 34.2 2.2 6.0 8.2

 24–29 100.0 28.0 26.3 6.5 † †

 30 or older 100.0 59.8 57.0 9.7 † †

 Total 85.7 51.4 48.6 8.2 0.4 1.5

Age as of 12/31/99

 Younger than 24 † 64.4 35.5 1.9 4.2 10.2

 24–29 100.0 33.0 36.4 5.6 † †

 30 or older 100.0 58.3 58.8 11.5 † †

 Public 2-year

 Total 86.3 54.3 48.5 8.7 0.4 0.4

Age as of 12/31/99

 Younger than 24 † 78.1 32.3 2.2 4.5 3.2

 24–29 100.0 38.4 32.3 8.1 † †

 30 or older 100.0 56.5 60.4 10.7 † †

 Total 73.8 64.0 37.2 7.4 1.1 2.9

Age as of 12/31/99

 Younger than 24 † 76.7 26.8 3.8 4.2 11.0

 24–29 100.0 54.4 32.6 7.5 † †

 30 or older 100.0 64.9 49.6 10.0 † †

† Not applicable.

NOTE: Categories are not mutually exclusive. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000

academic year. Estimates in the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Total includes other

institutions not listed separately in this table. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

 Private for-profit less-than-4-year

 Private not-for-profit 4-year
Table 2a. Percentage distribution (by columns) of undergraduates by attendance status, dependency status, and selected stude

Table 2a. 1999–2000Student characteristics Total Dependent Independent Total Dependent Independent Total 

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0  Characteristics determining dependency statusAge Younger than 24 56.6 100.0 15.7 80.1 100.0 24.6 42.2  24–29 16.9 † 32.8 10.7 † 40.2 20.8  30 or older 26.5 † 51.4 9.3 † 35.1 37.0 Family responsibilities Married 23.5 † 45.7 10.2 † 38.4 31.7  Married, no dependent 8.6 † 16.6 3.5 † 13.2 11.7 

 Married parents 15.0 † 29.0 6.7 † 25.2 20.0  Single 76.5 100.0 54.3 89.8 100.0 61.6 68.3  Single, no dependents 64.2 100.0 30.4 82.0 100.0 32.0 53.2  Single parents 12.3 † 24.0 7.8 † 29.6 15.1  Other student characteristicsGender Male 43.9 47.2 40.8 44.0 45.8 39.0 43.9  Female 56.1 52.8 59.2 56.0 54.2 61.0 56.1 Race/ethnicity1

 American Indian 0.9 0.6 1.2 0.7 0.5 1.1 1.1  Asian 4.5 4.7 4.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.2  Blac

k 12.3 9.3 15.1 10.7 8.8 16.1 13.3 

 Hispanic 11.6 10.7 12.4 10.4 9.1 14.0 12.4  Pacific Islander 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8  White 67.3 71.1 63.8 69.8 73.3 60.2 65.8  More than one race 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.7  Other 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 Parents’ education High school or less 37.8 26.7 49.5 28.6 23.3 45.0 44.2  Some postsecondary education 22.8 23.9 21.8 23.2 22.9 24.0 22.6  Bachelor’s degree or higher 39.3 49.5 28.7 48.3 53.8 31.0 33.2 

See notes at end of table.

All students Full-time, full-year Par
Table 2a. Percentage distribution (by columns) of undergraduates by attendance status, dependency status, and selected stude

Table 2a. 1999–2000—ContinuedStudent characteristics Total Dependent Independent Total Dependent Independent Total 

Work status Did not wor

k 19.3 21.4 17.1 24.6 25.0 23.7 15.7 

 Worked part time (less than  35 hours per week) 40.6 56.4 24.9 59.2 63.5 46.1 28.4  Worked full time (35 hours per week or more) 40.1 22.2 58.0 16.2 11.6 30.2 55.9 Type of institution Public 4-year 34.3 43.9 25.1 49.3 51.9 41.7 25.1  Private not-for-profit 4-year 15.2 19.6 10.9 24.4 26.9 17.0 9.6  Public 2-year 46.3 34.2 57.8 23.1 19.7 33.2 60.5  Private for profit less-than-4-year 4.2 2.2 6.1 3.2 1.6 8.1 4.8 Residence On campus 15.4 28.4 3.1 29.5 37.9 6.2 6.7  Off campus 60.3 32.8 86.3 43.9 30.1 82.3 70.4  Living with parents 24.3 38.8 10.6 26.6 32.0 11.5 22.9 Delayed enrollment

 Did not delay 54.2 76.3 33.3 73.8 85.6 40.8 41.9  Delayed enrollment 45.8 23.8 66.7 26.2 14.4 59.2 58.1 

High school diploma Earned high school diploma 92.4 97.0 88.1 96.2 98.6 89.6 90.1  No high school diploma 7.6 3.1 11.9 3.8 1.5 10.4 9.9 

† Not applicable.

1 American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and Hispanic includes Latino

having origins in a race not listed. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Students were considered to be enrolled full time, full year if they attended full time for 9 m

considered part time or part year if they were enrolled less than full time or attended full time for less than 9 months. Does not include those attending 

during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates in the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error table

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2

All students Full-time, full-year Par
Overview of Independent Students

15 

By definition, all dependent students have no family responsibilities. All undergraduates 

who are married or have children will automatically qualify as independent under federal need 

analysis methodology. Thirty percent of independent students are single and have no dependents. 

Independent students enrolled part time were more likely to be married (47 percent) than those 

attending full time (38 percent). Married students were more likely than not to have children, and 

this was the case regardless of attendance status (29 percent vs. 17 percent). 

Gender 

In 1999–2000, independent students were more likely to be female than were dependent 

students (59 percent vs. 53 percent) regardless of their attendance status. 

Race/Ethnicity 

Independent students were less likely to be White than dependent students (64 percent vs. 

71 percent) and more likely to be Black (15 percent vs. 9 percent). Again, this finding held 

regardless of attendance status. About 12 percent of independent students were Hispanic or 

Latino. 

Parents’ Education 

Parents of independent students had lower levels of education than parents of dependent 

students. One-half (50 percent) of all independent students had parents with only a high school 

education or less, while a little over one-fourth (27 percent) of dependent students had parents 

with this level of education. Parents of dependent students were more likely than parents of 

independent students to have at least a bachelor’s degree (50 percent vs. 29 percent). Parental 

education varied among independent students when controlling for attendance status: part-time 

students were more likely than full-time students to have parents with no more than a high school 

education (51 percent vs. 45 percent), and parents of full-time students were more likely than 

those of part-time students to have at least a bachelor’s degree (31 percent vs. 28 percent). 

Employment Status 

Independent students were more likely to work full time while enrolled than were 

dependent students (58 percent vs. 22 percent). Almost one-third (30 percent) of all independent 

students enrolled in full-time undergraduate programs also held full-time jobs. About two-thirds 

(65 percent) of part-time independent students worked full time. 
Overview of Independent Students

16 

Residence 

The majority (86 percent) of independent students lived off campus. Dependent students 

were more likely than independent students to live on campus (28 percent vs. 3 percent) or with 

their parents (39 percent vs. 11 percent). 

Delayed Postsecondary Enrollment and High School Diploma 

Independent students were more likely to have delayed their enrollment at a postsecondary 

institution after high school (67 percent vs. 24 percent) and less likely than dependent students to 

have earned a high school diploma (88 percent vs. 97 percent). Part-time independent students 

were more likely to have delayed their enrollment than those enrolled full time (69 percent vs. 59 

percent). 

Demographic Differences Among Independent Students by Institution Type 

Some of the demographic characteristics of independent students differed by the type of 

institution attended. Several differences were found between independent students at private notfor-profit 4-year institutions and those at public 4-year institutions, although at both types of 

institutions, the percentage of independent students enrolled part time was about 70 percent 

(table 2b). Compared with those enrolled at public 4-year institutions, independent 

undergraduates at private not-for-profit 4-year institutions were older (age 30 or older: 55 

percent vs. 40 percent), more likely to be married (49 percent vs. 40 percent), more likely to have 

parents with only a high school education or less (48 percent vs. 41 percent), and more likely to 

have delayed their enrollment in postsecondary education (63 percent vs. 54 percent). They were 

also more likely to work full time while enrolled (65 percent vs. 48 percent). In other words, 

independent students attending private not-for-profit 4-year institutions were more likely than 

those attending public 4-year institutions to be “nontraditional” students.6 Independent students 

enrolled in public 4-year institutions, on the other hand, were more likely than those at any other 

institution to be single with no dependents (37 percent vs. 28–31 percent) (table 3). 

 

6 Horn (1996) defined nontraditional students as having one or more of the following characteristics: delayed enrollment in 

postsecondary education, part-time attendance, financial independence, full-time employment, having children, being a single 

parent, and not having obtained a high school diploma. 
Table 2b. Percentage distribution (by columns) of undergraduates by type of institution, dependency status, and selected stude

Table 2b. 1999–2000Student characteristics Dependent Independent Dependent Independent Dependent Independent 

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0  Characteristics determining dependency statusAge Younger than 24 100.0 18.5 100.0 14.3 100.0 13.7  24–29 † 41.9 † 30.9 † 28.7  30 or older † 39.6 † 54.8 † 57.6 Family responsibilities Married † 39.9 † 48.6 † 48.5  Married, no dependent † 15.6 † 17.8 † 17.9 

 Married parents † 24.3 † 30.7 † 30.6  Single 100.0 60.1 100.0 51.4 100.0 51.5  Single, no dependents 100.0 37.2 100.0 30.8 100.0 27.8  Single parents † 22.9 † 20.7 † 23.8  Other student characteristicsGender Male 46.2 43.6 44.9 40.0 49.9 40.1  Female 53.8 56.4 55.1 60.0 50.1 59.9 Race/ethnicity1

 American Indian 0.5 1.0 0.6 1.4 0.9 1.4  Asian 5.6 4.9 4.0 2.4 4.2 4.4  Black 9.4 13.6 7.3 14.6 9.6 14.8 

 Hispanic 8.4 10.9 10.0 14.2 12.9 11.8  Pacific Islander 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.8  White 73.1 66.9 74.4 63.7 68.3 64.4  More than one race 1.4 1.5 2.0 2.7 2.0 1.4  Other 1.0 0.8 1.3 0.6 1.1 0.9 

See notes at end of table.

Private not-for-profit 

Public 4-year 4-year Public 2-year 
Table 2b. Percentage distribution (by columns) of undergraduates by type of institution, dependency status, and selected stude

Table 2b. 1999–2000—ContinuedStudent characteristics Dependent Independent Dependent Independent Dependent Independent 

Parents’ education High school or less 22.9 40.8 18.8 47.5 33.9 52.8  Some postsecondary education 22.2 23.5 18.8 21.0 28.7 21.2  Bachelor’s degree or higher 54.9 35.7 62.5 31.6 37.4 26.0 Attendance status Full-time, full-year 68.3 31.6 79.1 29.6 33.2 10.9  Part-time or part-year 31.7 68.4 21.0 70.4 66.8 89.1 Work status Did not work 25.7 16.7 28.0 11.5 12.5 16.9 

 Worked part time (less than  35 hours per week) 61.0 35.4 63.4 23.3 47.4 20.3  Worked full time (35 hours  per week or more) 13.3 47.9 8.6 65.2 40.1 62.9 Residence On campus 32.8 5.3 56.6 5.5 8.3 2.1  Off campus 39.8 84.0 22.1 86.9 30.4 87.1  Living with parents 27.5 10.7 21.3 7.6 61.3 10.8 Delayed enrollment

 Did not delay 83.4 45.7 84.0 36.7 64.5 28.9  Delayed enrollment 16.7 54.4 16.0 63.3 35.5 71.1 

High school diploma Earned high school diploma 99.1 94.4 98.7 92.4 93.7 86.0  No high school diploma 0.9 5.7 1.3 7.6 6.3 14.0 

† Not applicable.

1 American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and Hispanic includes Latino

having origins in a race not listed. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Students were considered to be enrolled full time, full year if they attended full time for 9 m

considered part time or part year if they were enrolled less than full time or attended full time for less than 9 months. Does not include those attending 

during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates in the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error table

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2

Private not-for-profit 

Public 4-year 4-year Public 2-year 
Overview of Independent Students

19 

Independent students who attended private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions were the 

youngest of all the independent students; about one-fourth (26 percent) were younger than age 24 

(vs. 14–19 percent at the other types of institutions) (table 2b). They were more likely to be 

Black (23 percent vs. 14–15 percent), and they were less likely to have parents with a bachelor’s 

degree or higher (22 percent vs. 26–36 percent). They also were less likely to work while 

enrolled (31 percent vs. 12–17 percent did not work while enrolled). Compared with those 

attending other types of institutions, independent students who attended private for-profit lessthan-4-year institutions were also less likely to have earned a high school diploma (77 percent vs. 

86–94 percent), were more likely to have delayed their enrollment in postsecondary education 

(78 percent vs. 54–71 percent), and were more likely to be single parents (35 percent vs. 21–24 

percent) (table 3). 

Categories of Independent Students 

Because independent students do not all have the same level of family responsibilities, they 

are not all assumed to have the same needs. An important part of the need analysis used to 

determine eligibility for federal financial aid is the calculation of the expected family 

contribution (EFC), which is based primarily on income. However, the particular formulas used 

to calculate the EFC for independent students are based on different assumptions, depending 

Table 3. Percentage distribution of independent students by family responsibilities and type of institution:

Table 3. 1999–2000

Type of institution Single Married Single Married

 Total excluding Puerto Rico 30.4 16.8 23.9 28.9

 Total 30.4 16.6 24.0 29.0

Type of institution

 Public 4-year 37.2 15.6 22.9 24.3

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 30.8 17.8 20.7 30.7

 Public 2-year 27.8 17.9 23.8 30.6

 Private for-profit less-than-4-year 27.6 8.4 35.2 28.8

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Students were considered to be enrolled full time, full year if they

attended full time for 9 months or more; they were considered part time or part year if they were enrolled less than full time or

attended full time for less than 9 months. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000

academic year. Estimates in the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Total includes other

institutions not listed separately in this table. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

 No dependents Have dependents
Overview of Independent Students

20 

partly on the marital status of the students and whether they have dependents (usually children) 

of their own. 

Independent students have been grouped in this study into four categories based on marital 

status and whether they had dependents of their own, referred to in this report as having “family 

responsibilities.” In 1999–2000, the proportion of independent students who were single with no 

dependents was at 30 percent; those who were married with no dependents constituted 17 percent 

of all independent students; about one-fourth (24 percent) were single parents; and 29 percent 

were married parents (table 3). In this study, all but those who were single with no dependents 

were considered to have family responsibilities. 

Family Responsibilities by Age 

One major question this study addressed was the following: To what extent were students 

likely to qualify for independent status because they had adult responsibilities (such as being 

married or having children) as opposed to having reached the age (24 years) at which federal 

need analysis assumes they are self-supporting? Independent students were grouped into the 

three age categories described earlier (younger than 24; 24–29; and 30 or older) to determine 

whether those within each category were more likely to qualify for independent status based on 

age or family responsibilities. 

This study found that the youngest independent students (younger than 24) and the oldest 

ones (30 or older) were very likely to have family responsibilities (figure 5 and table 4). About 

90 percent of independent students younger than 24 were either married or had children, or both. 

They were most likely to be single parents (57 percent). About three-fourths (77 percent) of 

those who were 30 or older had family responsibilities, and were the group most likely to be 

married with children (40 percent). By contrast, the 24- to 29-year-old age group had the highest 

proportion (51 percent) of independent students who were single with no dependents, and they 

qualified for independent status based on their age alone. 

Family Responsibilities by Class Level 

Independent status was also related to class level at 4-year institutions (table 5). About 26 

percent of both freshmen and sophomores were independent. Among juniors, this figure 

increased to 37 percent, and among seniors, to 49 percent. Students were able to qualify for 

independent status when they were in the upper class levels in large part due to advancing age 

rather than increased family responsibilities. As they moved from the lower to the upper class 

levels, the proportion of independent students who were single with no dependents grew from 7 
Overview of Independent Students

21 

Figure 5. Percentage distribution of independent undergraduates by family responsibilities and age 

Figure 5. category: 1999–2000

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the

1999–2000 academic year. Estimates include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables

are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

29

15 18

40

17

17 13

19

24 57

18

18

30

11

51

23

0

20

40

60

80

100

Total Younger than

24

24–29 30 or older

Percent

Single, no dependents

Single parent

Married, no dependents

Married parent

Table 4.–Percentage distribution of independent undergraduates by family responsibilities and age:

Table 4.–1999–2000

Single, no Married, no Single Married

Age dependents Total dependents parent parents

 Total excluding Puerto Rico 30.4 69.6 16.8 23.9 28.9

 Total 30.4 69.6 16.6 24.0 29.0

Age as of 12/31/99

 Younger than 24 10.5 89.5 17.0 57.1 15.4

 24–29 51.4 48.6 12.6 17.8 18.3

 30 or older 23.1 77.0 19.1 17.8 40.1

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Students were considered to be enrolled full time, full year if they

attended full time for 9 months or more; they were considered part time or part year if they were enrolled less than full time or

attended full time for less than 9 months. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000

academic year. Estimates in the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Total includes other

institutions not listed separately in this table. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Have family responsibilities
Overview of Independent Students

22 

percent among freshmen to 20 percent among seniors. The percentages in each category with 

family responsibilities, however, changed only minimally (married, no dependents: 3 percent to 

9 percent; married with dependents: 7 percent to 12 percent), or did not exhibit any statistically 

significant changes over time (single parents constituted about 8 percent of undergraduates for 

all class years). Seniors were the group with the largest percentage of independent students who 

Table 5. Among undergraduates enrolled at 4-year institutions, percentage distribution by dependency

Table 5. status, family responsibilities, attendance status, and class level: 1999–2000

Class level Dependent Total Single Married Single Married

 Total

 Total excluding Puerto Rico 62.1 37.9 13.4 6.2 8.2 10.0

 Total 62.1 37.9 13.4 6.2 8.3 10.1

Class level in 1999–2000

 Freshman 75.0 25.0 6.5 3.2 8.2 7.1

 Sophomore 73.0 27.0 8.7 3.4 7.1 7.8

 Junior 63.3 36.7 12.1 5.8 8.2 10.5

 Senior 51.1 48.9 20.1 8.7 8.5 11.5

 Full-time, full-year 

 Total 78.6 21.4 7.8 2.9 5.8 4.9

Class level in 1999–2000

 Freshman 90.7 9.3 2.4 0.9 3.8 2.3

 Sophomore 85.4 14.6 4.6 1.3 5.3 3.5

 Junior 77.2 22.8 7.6 3.3 6.4 5.5

 Senior 67.3 32.7 13.8 5.2 6.7 7.1

 Part-time or part-year

 Total 40.7 59.3 20.7 10.3 11.6 16.8

Class level in 1999–2000

 Freshman 53.5 46.5 12.2 6.3 14.3 13.8

 Sophomore 50.3 49.7 16.2 7.2 10.5 15.7

 Junior 40.7 59.3 19.5 9.9 11.2 18.7

 Senior 33.7 66.3 27.0 12.5 10.4 16.4

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Students were considered to be enrolled full time, full year if they

attended full time for 9 months or more; they were considered part time or part year if they were enrolled less than full time or

attended full time for less than 9 months. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000

academic year. Estimates in the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Total includes other

institutions not listed separately in this table. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Independent

No dependents Have dependents
Overview of Independent Students

23 

were single and had no dependents (20 percent vs. 7–12 percent) because they could qualify on 

the basis of age alone. 

Both full-time and part-time students were more likely to be independent at the upper class 

levels than at the lower ones. Part-time students, however, were more likely to be independent 

than full-time students at every class level (59 percent vs. 21 percent, overall). About two-thirds 

(66 percent) of part-time seniors and one-third (33 percent) of full-time seniors were independent 

in 1999–2000. 

Demographic and Enrollment Differences by Family Responsibilities 

The demographic and enrollment characteristics of independent undergraduates also varied 

by the level of family responsibilities they had (table 6a). In general, independent students who 

were married were more likely than those who were single to have incomes in the highest quarter 

(highest quarter: 45 and 48 percent vs. 10 and 11 percent), largely because a spouse’s earnings 

are counted as part of an independent student’s family income. Married independent students 

were also less likely to be enrolled full time (16 and 17 percent vs. 21 and 24 percent) and more 

likely to live off campus (93 and 95 percent vs. 77 and 83 percent). Married students with no 

dependents differed from other independent students in terms of their race and ethnicity. They 

had the highest percentage of Whites (75 percent vs. 51–66 percent) and the lowest percentage of 

Blacks (7 percent vs. 12–26 percent). Married parents were more likely to be older (age 30 or 

older: 71 percent vs. 38–59 percent) than the rest of independent students. 

Single parents were more likely to be younger (younger than age 24: 38 percent vs. 5–16 

percent) and female (69 percent vs. 50–62 percent). Compared with independent students in the 

other categories, they also had a higher percentage of Blacks (26 percent vs. 7–14 percent) and a 

lower percentage of Whites (51 percent vs. 65–75 percent). Single parents also were more likely 

than other independent students to be enrolled full time (24 percent vs. 16–21 percent) and to 

attend private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions (9 percent vs. 3–6 percent). 

Single students (both those with dependents and those without) were more likely than 

married students to live with their parents (14 and 18 percent vs. 3 and 5 percent). Those who 

were single and had no dependents of their own were more likely to be between ages 24 and 29 

than were other independent students (56 percent vs. 21–25 percent) and had the highest 

percentage of males (50 percent vs. 31–42 percent). They were also more likely than other 

independent students to enroll in public 4-year institutions (31 percent vs. 21–24 percent). 
Overview of Independent Students

24 

Table 6a. Percentage distribution (by columns) of independent undergraduates by selected student

Table 6a. characteristics and family responsibilities: 1999–2000

Student characteristics Total Single Married Single Married

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Age

 Younger than 24 15.7 5.4 16.1 37.5 8.3

 24–29 32.8 55.5 24.9 24.3 20.6

 30 or older 51.4 39.0 59.0 38.2 71.0

Gender

 Male 40.8 50.4 42.3 31.3 37.9

 Female 59.2 49.6 57.7 68.7 62.1

Race/ethnicity1

 American Indian 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.1

 Asian 4.3 6.0 4.3 3.5 3.2

 Black 15.1 12.0 6.8 26.4 13.9

 Hispanic 12.4 11.2 9.6 14.6 13.5

 Pacific Islander 0.7 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.6

 White 63.8 66.1 75.4 51.1 65.1

 More than one race 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.9 1.6

 Other 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.9

Income quarters

 Lowest 23.8 35.0 9.9 37.5 8.8

 Lower middle 24.8 29.9 15.7 32.0 18.6

 Higher middle 24.8 24.5 26.4 20.7 27.7

 Highest 26.6 10.5 48.0 9.8 44.9

Parents’ education

 High school or less 49.5 40.9 46.7 52.5 56.1

 Some postsecondary education 21.8 21.5 23.1 24.4 19.9

 Bachelor’s degree or higher 28.7 37.6 30.3 23.1 24.0

Attendance status

 Full-time, full-year 19.5 20.6 15.5 24.1 17.0

 Part-time or part-year 80.5 79.4 84.5 75.9 83.0

Type of institution

 Public 4-year 25.1 30.7 23.4 24.1 21.1

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 10.9 11.0 11.7 9.5 11.6

 Public 2-year 57.8 52.7 61.9 57.5 61.2

 Private for-profit 

 less-than-4-year 6.1 5.6 3.1 9.0 6.1

See notes at end of table.

No dependents Have dependents
Overview of Independent Students

25 

Indicators of Financial Independence: Age or Family Responsibilities? 

Among independent students who were younger, family responsibilities were a key 

variable that differentiated them from dependent students and other independent students of the 

same age. For example, whether one had children played a role in determining where an 

independent student was likely to enroll, if the student was under the age of 30. About two-thirds 

(65 percent) of those who were parents attended less-than-4-year institutions, compared with 

about one-half (53 percent) of those who did not have children (figure 6). After age 30, however, 

having children was no longer related to the level of institution attended. Among those who were 

Table 6a. Percentage distribution (by columns) of independent undergraduates by selected student

Table 6a. characteristics and family responsibilities: 1999–2000—Continued

Student characteristics Total Single Married Single Married

Work status

 Did not work 17.1 13.6 17.2 17.1 20.2

 Worked part time (less than 

 35 hours per week) 24.9 30.4 22.9 26.6 19.9

 Worked full time (35 hours 

 per week or more) 58.0 56.0 60.0 56.3 59.9

Residence

 On campus 3.1 4.5 2.1 3.2 2.2

 Off campus 86.3 77.1 93.4 82.7 94.7

 Living with parents 10.6 18.4 4.6 14.0 3.1

Delayed enrollment

 Did not delay 33.3 36.3 31.4 32.8 31.7

 Delayed enrollment 66.7 63.7 68.7 67.2 68.3

High school diploma

 Earned high school diploma 88.1 90.1 89.2 85.0 88.2

 No high school diploma 11.9 9.9 10.9 15.1 11.8

1 American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and

Hispanic includes Latino. Other includes respondents having origins in a race not listed. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin

unless specified.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Students were considered to be enrolled full time, full year if they

attended full time for 9 months or more; they were considered part time or part year if they were enrolled less than full time or

attended full time for less than 9 months. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000

academic year. Estimates in the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Total includes other

institutions not listed separately in this table. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

No dependents Have dependents
Overview of Independent Students

26 

age 30 or older, about 69 percent of both those who had children and those who did not were 

enrolled in less-than-4-year institutions. 

The differences between students who have family responsibilities and those who do not 

have them are clear. How, then, are independent students with no family responsibilities different 

from dependent students who also have no family responsibilities? In addition to being older, do 

they have different needs, and are they indeed more self-sufficient than younger, dependent 

students?7 Compared with dependent students, independent students age 24 or older who were 

single with no dependents had, in fact, more of the characteristics that define nontraditional 

students, and they appeared to be more self-sufficient in at least one important way: they were 

more likely to work while enrolled. More than one-half (57 percent) worked full time, compared 

with 22 percent of dependent students (table 6b). They were also more likely to attend part time 

 

7 Single independent students who were under the age of 24 and had no dependents were not included in the analysis because 

they would have qualified for independent status for reasons other than their age (e.g., veterans, orphans, and those who qualified 

through professional judgment). 

Figure 6. Percentage distribution of independent undergraduates by level of institution, by age and whether 

Figure 6. they have children or other dependents: 1999–2000

NOTE: Among independent undergraduates who were classified as “having children,” there are also some who were responsible

for dependents other than their own children. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Does not include those

attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates include students attending postsecondary

institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

47

35 30 32

53

65 70 68

0

20

40

60

80

100

No children Have children No children Have children

Percent

Less-than-4-year

institutions

4-year institutions

Younger than 30 30 or older
Overview of Independent Students

27 

Table 6b. Percentage distribution (by columns) of undergraduates by selected student characteristics,

Table 6b. family responsibilities, dependency status, and age: 1999–2000

Dependent Independent Independent Independent

Student characteristics under 24 24 or older Total under 24 24 or older

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Age

 Younger than 24 100.0 † 20.2 100.0 † 

 24–29 † 58.7 22.9 † 28.7

 30 or older † 41.3 56.9 † 71.3

Gender

 Male 47.2 50.6 36.7 33.2 37.6

 Female 52.8 49.4 63.3 66.9 62.4

Race/ethnicity1

 American Indian 0.6 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.2

 Asian 4.7 6.1 3.6 3.4 3.6

 Black 9.3 11.4 16.5 17.8 16.2

 Hispanic 10.7 11.1 13.0 15.2 12.4

 Pacific Islander 0.8 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.5

 White 71.1 66.6 62.8 58.5 63.9

 More than one race 1.7 1.4 1.7 2.5 1.5

 Other 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.8

Parents’ education

 High school or less 26.7 40.9 53.1 41.5 55.4

 Some postsecondary education 23.9 21.1 21.9 27.7 20.7

 Bachelor’s degree or higher 49.5 38.0 25.0 30.8 23.9

Attendance status

 Full-time, full-year 57.7 19.3 19.1 29.1 16.5

 Part-time or part-year 42.3 80.7 80.9 70.9 83.5

Type of institution

 Public 4-year 43.9 30.2 22.7 28.3 21.2

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 19.6 10.9 10.9 9.4 11.3

 Public 2-year 34.2 54.0 60.1 52.7 62.0

 Private for-profit less-than-4-year 2.2 5.0 6.4 9.6 5.6

Work status

 Did not work 21.4 13.4 18.6 18.8 18.6

 Worked part time (less than

 35 hours per week) 56.4 29.8 22.6 36.1 20.0

 Worked full time (35 hours 

 per week or more) 22.2 56.8 58.8 45.1 61.4

See notes at end of table.

Single, no dependents Have family responsibilities
Overview of Independent Students

28 

Table 6b. Percentage distribution (by columns) of undergraduates by selected student characteristics,

Table 6b. family responsibilities, dependency status, and age: 1999–2000—Continued

Dependent Independent Independent Independent

Student characteristics under 24 24 or older Total under 24 24 or older

Residence

 On campus 28.4 3.8 2.5 5.1 1.9

 Off campus 32.8 77.7 90.3 76.3 93.8

 Living with parents 38.8 18.4 7.2 18.7 4.3

Delayed enrollment

 Did not delay 76.3 35.0 32.0 47.9 28.0

 Delayed enrollment 23.8 65.0 68.0 52.1 72.0

High school diploma

 Earned high school diploma 97.0 90.0 87.3 88.7 86.9

 No high school diploma 3.1 10.0 12.7 11.3 13.1

Applied for aid

 Applied for aid 70.5 57.5 60.8 62.8 60.3

 Did not apply for aid 29.5 42.5 39.2 37.2 39.7

Aid status among aid applicants

 Received any aid 83.5 83.2 85.9 88.4 85.3

 Did not receive any aid 16.5 16.8 14.1 11.6 14.7

Grant status among aid applicants

 Received any grants 65.9 63.7 73.0 80.7 71.0

 Did not receive any grants 34.2 36.4 27.0 19.3 29.1

Loan status among aid applicants

 Received any loans 49.5 45.2 33.4 37.8 32.2

 Did not receive any loans 50.5 54.8 66.6 62.2 67.8

† Not applicable.

1 American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and

Hispanic includes Latino. Other includes respondents having origins in a race not listed. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin

unless specified.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Students were considered to be enrolled full time, full year if they

attended full time for 9 months or more; they were considered part time or part year if they were enrolled less than full time or

attended full time for less than 9 months. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000

academic year. Estimates in the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Total includes other

institutions not listed separately in this table. Students were considered to have family responsibilities if they had dependents

of their own, were married, or both. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Single, no dependents Have family responsibilities
Overview of Independent Students

29 

(81 percent vs. 42 percent), to enroll at a public 2-year institution (54 percent vs. 34 percent), to 

live off campus (78 percent vs. 33 percent), and to have delayed their enrollment after high 

school (65 percent vs. 24 percent). 

On the other hand, when compared with independent students who had family 

responsibilities, independent students with no family responsibilities had some of the 

characteristics that were more commonly found among dependent students. They were more 

likely to be younger (30 or older: 41 percent vs. 57 percent), to be male (51 percent vs. 37 

percent), to enroll in public 4-year institutions (30 percent vs. 23 percent), and to have a parent 

with a bachelor’s degree or higher (38 percent vs. 25 percent). They were also more likely to live 

with their parents (18 percent vs. 7 percent), although this was at a much lower rate than among 

dependent students (39 percent). Furthermore, and perhaps related to not having any family 

responsibilities that would qualify them for more need-based aid, they were less likely to receive 

grants (64 percent vs. 73 percent) and more likely to receive loans (45 percent vs. 33 percent). 

Field of Study and Institution Type 

In 1999–2000, 60 percent of all undergraduate students majored in a career-related field 

rather than in liberal arts or general studies (table 7). Compared with dependent students, 

independent students were more likely to be in career-related fields (64 percent vs. 55 percent) 

and less likely to have liberal arts or general study majors (24 percent vs. 36 percent). This 

pattern varied by institution type. The most noticeable differences were between dependent and 

independent students enrolled at private not-for-profit 4-year institutions, where 45 percent of 

dependent undergraduates had liberal arts majors, compared with only 26 percent of independent 

students. Independent students attending private not-for-profit 4-year institutions were more 

likely to major in a career-related field (69 percent) than independent students attending either 

public 4-year (59 percent) or public 2-year institutions (61 percent). 

The distribution of undergraduates enrolled in 4-year institutions, according to the Carnegie 

classification, shows that independent students at private not-for-profit institutions were less 

likely than dependent students to attend major doctoral/research universities (9 percent vs. 21 

percent) or liberal arts colleges (4 percent vs. 14 percent), and more likely to attend specialized 

or other institutions that focus on career-related fields such as business, technology, or health (43 

percent vs. 29 percent) (table 8). This may help explain the difference in average tuition between 

dependent and independent students in this sector (discussed later in this report). 
Overview of Independent Students

30 

Table 7. Percentage distribution of undergraduate students by field of study, type of institution, and

Table 7. dependency status: 1999–2000

Liberal Computer

arts/ Total science/ Vocageneral career engi- tional/ UnDependency status studies fields Education Business neering technical Health declared

 Total

 Total excluding Puerto Rico 29.9 59.2 7.2 16.4 12.5 13.8 9.2 10.9

 Total 29.9 59.5 7.2 16.6 12.6 13.8 9.2 10.7

Dependency status

 Dependent 35.5 54.7 7.5 16.0 11.0 12.8 7.4 9.8

 Independent 24.4 64.0 7.0 17.1 14.2 14.8 10.9 11.6

 Public 4-year

 Total 34.5 57.4 9.6 17.4 11.0 10.8 8.7 8.1

Dependency status

 Dependent 35.9 56.3 8.9 16.9 11.3 11.5 7.6 7.9

 Independent 32.3 59.2 10.8 18.0 10.4 9.5 10.4 8.5

 Private not-for-profit 4-year

 Total 37.9 55.7 9.1 21.6 9.8 8.1 7.1 6.4

Dependency status

 Dependent 45.0 48.3 8.6 17.2 8.5 8.1 5.9 6.7

 Independent 25.5 68.7 10.0 29.4 12.1 8.0 9.1 5.8

 Public 2-year

 Total 26.4 58.1 5.7 14.3 13.1 15.3 9.7 15.5

Dependency status

 Dependent 31.7 53.2 5.8 14.1 10.7 15.0 7.5 15.1

 Independent 23.4 60.9 5.7 14.4 14.5 15.5 10.9 15.7

 Private for-profit less-than-4-year

 Total 7.4 91.7 0.3 12.7 25.3 37.6 15.9 0.9

Dependency status

 Dependent 13.6 85.7 0.7 12.2 24.4 33.8 14.5 0.8

 Independent 5.2 93.9 0.2 12.8 25.6 38.9 16.3 0.9

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Categories are not mutually exclusive. Does not include those attending more

than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates in the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in

Puerto Rico. Total includes other institutions not listed separately in this table. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Stud

(NPSAS:2000).

 

 

Career fields
Overview of Independent Students

31 

Table 8. Percentage distribution of undergraduates by Carnegie classification and type of 4-year institution,

Table 8. attendance status, and dependency status: 1999–2000

Doctoral/research Doctoral/research Master’s Baccalaureate

Dependency universities, universities, colleges and colleges, Specialized

status extensive intensive universities I liberal arts and other

 Total 31.2 11.6 36.3 4.2 16.7

Dependency status

 Dependent 36.2 11.2 33.7 5.3 13.7

 Independent 22.9 12.2 40.6 2.4 21.9

 Total 37.9 13.6 38.0 1.5 9.1

Dependency status

 Dependent 43.1 12.8 36.0 1.3 6.8

 Independent 29.1 14.9 41.3 1.8 12.9

 Total 16.1 7.1 32.4 10.4 34.0

Dependency status

 Dependent 20.5 7.7 28.6 14.1 29.0

 Independent 8.6 6.1 38.9 4.0 42.5

 Total 42.8 12.9 35.9 1.4 7.0

Dependency status

 Dependent 45.7 12.4 34.7 1.4 5.9

 Independent 32.3 14.9 40.2 1.6 11.1

 Total 20.1 7.0 28.6 13.5 30.8

Dependency status

 Dependent 22.2 7.4 27.5 15.1 27.8

 Independent 10.8 5.1 33.5 6.0 44.6

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Students were considered to be enrolled full time, full year if they attended

full time for 9 months or more; they were considered part time or part year if they were enrolled less than full time or attended full time

for less than 9 months. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates in

the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS:2000).

 Public 4-year, full-time, full-year only

 Private not-for-profit 4-year, full-time, full-year only

 Total 4-year

 Public 4-year

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 
Overview of Independent Students

32 

Independent students at public 4-year institutions also were not as likely as dependent 

students to attend major research universities. For example, 43 percent of dependent students in 

public institutions attended a doctoral/research university (extensive), compared with 29 percent 

of independent students. 
33 

Education Financing 

The total price of attendance for students consists of two major components: tuition and 

fees and nontuition living expenses such as room and board. In general, independent students had 

higher living expenses than dependent students, who were more likely to live at home with their 

parents in 1999–2000 (39 percent vs. 11 percent)8 and have no childcare expenses. For example, 

the average nontuition expenses of full-time undergraduates attending public 2-year institutions 

were $7,000 for dependent students and $8,500 for independent students (table 9). 

Both full-time dependent and independent students were charged about $1,500 in tuition at 

public 2-year institutions, the lowest priced institutions included in this study. Because their 

living expenses were higher than that of dependent students, the average total price of attendance 

was higher for independent students ($9,900 vs. $8,500). However, the average amount of total 

financial aid received by independent students was also higher ($3,400 vs. $1,600), so there was 

no significant difference in the net price of attendance for dependent and independent students 

after they received aid (about $6,800). 

Full-time independent undergraduates at 4-year institutions also had higher living expenses 

than dependent students, but independent students had lower tuition charges, especially those 

enrolled at private not-for-profit 4-year institutions ($9,900 vs. $16,000). Although the average 

amount of total financial aid received by independent students was less than that received by 

dependent students ($9,700 vs. $12,200), lower tuition charges kept the average net price after all 

aid lower for independent students ($9,300 vs. $12,300). 

At public 4-year institutions, both larger amounts of aid and lower levels of tuition ($3,600 

vs. $4,300) resulted in a lower average net price after all aid for independent students than that 

for dependent students. Higher living expenses incurred by independent students were offset by 

greater amounts of aid in the form of grants ($2,600 vs. $1,900) and loans ($4,100 vs. $2,500). 

Thus, independent students at public 4-year institutions paid a lower average net price after all 

aid than dependent students ($5,700 vs. $7,800). 

It appears that independent students at 4-year institutions reduce their net price of 

attendance not only by relying on financial aid but also by enrolling in institutions with lower 

 

8 See table 2a. 
Education Financing

34 

Table 9. Average tuition, nontuition expenses, total price, financial aid, and net price for dependent and

Table 9. independent full-time, full-year undergraduates, by type of institution: 1999–2000

Average Total Dependent Independent

Tuition $4,200 $4,300 $3,600

Nontuition expenses 8,300 8,100 9,300

Total price of attendance 12,500 12,400 12,900

Grant amount1 2,100 1,900 2,600

Loan amount1 2,800 2,500 4,100

Total aid amount1 5,200 4,600 7,200

Net price after grants 10,400 10,500 10,300

Net price after all aid 7,300 7,800 5,700

Tuition 14,900 16,000 9,900

Nontuition expenses 8,600 8,500 9,000

Total price of attendance 23,500 24,500 18,800

Grant amount1 6,400 6,800 4,200

Loan amount1 4,800 4,800 4,900

Total aid amount1 11,700 12,200 9,700

Net price after grants 17,100 17,600 14,500

Net price after all aid 11,800 12,300 9,300

Tuition 1,500 1,600 1,400

Nontuition expenses 7,500 7,000 8,500

Total price of attendance 9,100 8,500 9,900

Grant amount1 1,300 1,100 1,800

Loan amount1 700 400 1,100

Total aid amount1 2,300 1,600 3,400

Net price after grants 7,700 7,500 8,100

Net price after all aid 6,800 6,900 6,500

Tuition 8,600 9,100 8,300

Nontuition expenses 8,700 8,500 8,800

Total price of attendance 17,300 17,500 17,100

Grant amount1 2,300 1,900 2,600

Loan amount1 5,300 5,800 5,000

Total aid amount1 8,000 7,800 8,100

Net price after grants 14,900 15,600 14,500

Net price after all aid 9,300 9,700 9,000

1

 Includes zero amounts for students who did not receive aid, or the aid was equal to total price.

NOTE: Categories are not mutually exclusive. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000

academic year. Estimates in the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are

available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS:2000).

 Public 4-year

 Private not-for-profit 4-year

 Public 2-year

 Private for-profit less-than-4-year
Education Financing

35 

tuition. Independent students were less likely than dependent students to attend major 

doctoral/research universities that charge higher tuition than do most other types of institutions 

within their respective public or private not-for-profit sectors.9 Moreover, even within the same 

Carnegie type and control, independent students generally appeared to be more likely than 

dependent students to choose institutions that charge lower tuition (table 10).10 

 

9 See table 8. 

10 This was the case among those attending most of the institutions included in this study. No statistically significant difference 

in tuition levels was found among those attending some types of institutions, such as specialized and other institutions and public 

master’s colleges and universities. 

Table 10. Average tuition among full-time, full-year undergraduate students enrolled in postsecondary

Table 10. institutions by Carnegie classification, control of institution, and dependency status: 1999–2000

Doctoral/ Doctoral/

research research Master’s Baccalaureate

Dependency Average universities, universities, colleges and colleges, Specialized

status tuition extensive intensive universities I liberal arts and other

 Public

 Total $4,200 $5,100 $3,800 $3,400 $3,400 $3,700

Dependency status

 Dependent 4,300 5,200 3,900 3,500 3,600 3,800

 Independent 3,600 4,400 3,300 3,100 ‡ 3,500

 Private not-for-profit

 Total 14,900 21,000 15,700 13,100 18,700 10,900

Dependency status

 Dependent 16,000 21,500 16,200 14,000 19,300 11,800

 Independent 9,900 15,800 12,800 9,400 12,100 8,200

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases for a reliable estimate).

NOTE: Students were considered to be enrolled full time, full year if they were enrolled full time for 9 or more months during

the academic year. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates

in the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).
Education Financing

36 

Income and Expected Family Contribution (EFC) 

The median income of all independent students enrolled in postsecondary education in 

1999–2000 was about $27,000 in 1998 (table 11a). Married students had higher incomes than 

those who were single, in part because married students have spouses whose earnings contribute 

to the total family income. Married independent students had a median family income of 

between $42,000 and $45,000, while unmarried students earned between $17,100 and $19,600. 

Attendance status was also related to income. Part-time independent students had higher 

median incomes than their full-time counterparts ($30,000 vs. $15,200). They were more likely 

to work more hours and therefore have additional earnings. More than one-half (54 and 58 

percent) of full-time single independent students were in the lowest income quarter. By contrast, 

about one-half (49 and 52 percent) of the part-time independent students who were married were 

in the highest income quarter. 

Students attending private for-profit less-than 4-year institutions had the lowest median 

income ($15,000 vs. $23,000–$30,000) (table 11b). This may be related to their higher likelihood 

of not working while enrolled (31 percent vs. 12–17 percent).11 Independent students attending 

private not-for-profit 4-year and public 2-year institutions had higher incomes ($28,000 and 

$30,000) than those attending public 4-year and private for-profit less-than 4-year institutions 

($15,000 and $23,000). 

The calculation of the federal expected family contribution (EFC), which is used to 

determine need-based aid eligibility, takes into account the marital status, number of dependents, 

and family income of independent students.12 In general, students with dependents to support are 

expected to contribute less than those who have no dependents. 

Single parents, who had both low incomes and dependents, had the lowest average EFC 

among the four categories of independent students ($2,800 vs. $6,600–$15,300). By contrast, 

married students who had no dependents and higher incomes had the highest average EFC 

($15,300 vs. $2,800–$6,700). 

Both income level and having dependents were related to the likelihood of receiving grants 

and loans. The likelihood of receiving grants was higher for those who had children, particularly 

among those in the middle income ($13,001–$50,000) categories, for both married and 

unmarried independent students (table 11c). Single students with no dependents were more likely 

than single parents to receive loans, in all but the highest income categories. 

 

11 See table 2b. 

12 Expected Family Contribution (EFC) levels were imputed for those who did not apply for financial aid. 
Education Financing

37 

Table 11a. Among independent undergraduates, median income, percentage distribution by income level,

Table 11a. and average federal expected family contribution (EFC), by attendance status and family

Table 11a. responsibilities: 1999–2000

Lower Higher

middle middle Highest Average

Median Lowest ($13,001– ($27,001– (Above federal

Family responsibilities income ($0–13,000) 27,000) 50,000) $50,000) EFC

 Total

 Total excluding Puerto Rico $27,500 23.4 24.8 25.0 26.9 $7,200

 Total 27,000 23.8 24.8 24.8 26.6 7,200

Single, no dependents 19,600 35.0 29.9 24.5 10.5 6,700

Single parent 17,100 37.5 32.0 20.7 9.8 2,800

Married, no dependents 45,000 9.9 15.7 26.4 48.0 15,300

Married parents 42,000 8.8 18.6 27.7 44.9 6,600

 Full-time, full-year

 Total 15,200 41.6 31.2 16.1 11.0 3,600

Single, no dependents 11,000 58.3 29.2 9.7 2.8 3,500

Single parent 11,400 53.9 37.1 6.2 2.8 1,300

Married, no dependents 28,200 20.4 26.6 27.2 25.8 9,000

Married parents 27,400 17.2 29.2 30.2 23.4 3,500

 Part-time or part-year

 Total 30,000 19.5 23.2 26.9 30.3 8,000

Single, no dependents 22,000 29.0 30.1 28.4 12.5 7,500

Single parent 19,700 32.3 30.4 25.3 12.0 3,300

Married, no dependents 48,300 8.0 13.7 26.2 52.1 16,500

Married parents 46,000 7.1 16.5 27.1 49.3 7,200

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. The expected family contribution (EFC) is the amount that students

and families are expected to pay for a postsecondary education and is calculated during need analysis.The EFC is based upon

the student’s family income, family size, number of family members in college, and other related factors. EFC amounts were

imputed for those who did not apply for financial aid. Students were considered to be enrolled full time, full year if they 

attended full time for 9 months or more; they were considered part time or part year if they were enrolled less than full time or

attended full time for less than 9 months. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 

academic year. Estimates in the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables 

are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Income level
Education Financing

38 

Table 11b. Among independent undergraduates, median income, percentage distribution by income level,

Table 11b. and average federal expected family contribution (EFC), by type of institution and family 

Table 11b. responsibilities: 1999–2000

Lower Higher

middle middle Highest Average

Median Lowest ($13,001– ($27,001– (Above federal

Family responsibilities income ($0–13,000) 27,000) 50,000) $50,000) EFC

 Total

 Total excluding Puerto Rico $27,500 23.4 24.8 25.0 26.9 $7,200

 Total 27,000 23.8 24.8 24.8 26.6 7,200

Single, no dependents 19,600 35.0 29.9 24.5 10.5 6,700

Single parent 17,100 37.5 32.0 20.7 9.8 2,800

Married, no dependents 45,000 9.9 15.7 26.4 48.0 15,300

Married parents 42,000 8.8 18.6 27.7 44.9 6,600

 Public 4-year

 Total 23,000 31.0 25.7 21.5 21.8 6,100

Single, no dependents 14,500 46.4 27.9 18.1 7.7 5,200

Single parent 16,000 41.3 32.0 18.1 8.6 2,700

Married, no dependents 38,600 13.8 19.0 27.0 40.2 12,900

Married parents 40,600 8.9 20.6 26.7 43.9 6,400

 Total 28,000 23.3 23.9 23.1 29.7 7,700

Single, no dependents 17,700 38.0 28.6 20.6 12.8 6,700

Single parent 18,000 34.3 32.3 20.6 12.9 2,900

Married, no dependents 40,800 9.7 20.1 24.7 45.5 15,600

Married parents 45,900 9.2 15.7 26.3 48.8 7,300

 Public 2-year

 Total 30,000 18.6 23.9 27.4 30.2 8,100

Single, no dependents 23,000 26.2 31.0 30.2 12.6 7,800

Single parent 19,000 32.9 31.7 24.1 11.3 3,300

Married, no dependents 49,000 7.7 13.4 26.5 52.3 16,500

Married parents 44,900 7.0 17.4 28.0 47.7 7,000

 Total 15,000 43.6 30.3 16.6 9.5 3,200

Single, no dependents 13,400 50.4 31.2 15.4 3.0 4,100

Single parent 9,900 58.4 32.6 7.4 1.6 700

Married, no dependents 32,000 21.7 21.0 28.0 29.4 10,200

Married parents 23,500 25.3 29.4 25.5 19.7 3,200

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. The expected family contribution (EFC) is the amount that students

and families are expected to pay for a postsecondary education and is calculated during need analysis.The EFC is based upon the

student’s family income, family size, number of family members in college, and other related factors. EFC amounts were

imputed for those who did not apply for financial aid. Students were considered to be enrolled full time, full year if they 

attended full time for 9 months or more; they were considered part time or part year if they were enrolled less than full time or

attended full time for less than 9 months. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 

academic year. Estimates in the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables 

are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

 Private for-profit less-than-4-year

 Private not-for-profit 4-year

Income level
Education Financing

39 

Table 11c. Among independent undergraduates, percentage who applied for financial aid and, among 

Table 11c. those who applied, percentage who received any aid, grants, or loans, and the average 

Table 11c. amounts received, by income level and family responsibilities: 1999–2000

Applied

Family responsibilities for aid Percent Average Percent Average Percent Average

 Total

 Total excluding Puerto Rico 60.2 85.2 $4,900 70.2 $2,300 37.5 $5,900

 Total 60.5 85.3 4,800 70.5 2,300 37.2 5,900

Single, no dependents 59.7 83.7 5,700 64.7 2,400 46.1 6,300

Single parent 64.7 89.2 4,700 81.8 2,600 35.4 5,100

Married, no dependents 46.1 81.8 4,300 58.3 1,900 32.4 6,300

Married parents 66.0 85.0 4,300 71.8 2,100 32.1 5,800

 Lowest ($0–13,000)

 Total 80.2 89.4 6,100 83.4 2,900 46.3 5,700

Single, no dependents 81.4 88.1 6,900 80.1 2,900 54.0 6,200

Single parent 78.2 91.5 5,400 87.2 3,000 40.3 5,200

Married, no dependents 73.9 91.4 5,600 83.9 2,900 42.7 5,400

Married parents 85.6 87.2 5,400 84.2 2,900 37.5 5,100

 Lower middle ($13,001–27,000)

 Total 67.4 84.8 5,000 68.0 2,300 40.3 5,700

Single, no dependents 56.6 76.3 5,100 40.5 1,500 44.0 6,400

Single parent 68.5 89.6 4,600 82.0 2,500 37.4 4,900

Married, no dependents 62.5 79.8 5,500 58.2 2,000 43.6 6,400

Married parents 84.7 90.3 5,100 84.9 2,600 38.3 5,400

 Higher middle ($27,001–50,000)

 Total 50.4 81.7 3,800 60.5 1,500 30.4 6,100

Single, no dependents 39.4 81.1 3,400 53.9 1,300 29.1 6,300

Single parent 43.9 80.3 2,900 64.5 1,400 19.6 6,000

Married, no dependents 45.5 76.3 4,100 41.3 1,400 32.3 6,500

Married parents 66.3 84.7 4,300 69.9 1,700 34.4 5,900

 Highest (above $50,000)

 Total 41.4 81.5 3,000 59.5 1,400 20.5 6,600

Single, no dependents 26.8 87.4 2,600 68.9 1,300 18.7 6,300

Single parent 30.6 88.2 1,900 72.0 1,200 10.6 ‡ 

Married, no dependents 32.6 82.5 2,700 59.0 1,300 18.0 6,700

Married parents 51.5 79.9 3,200 57.5 1,500 22.6 6,700

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases for a reliable estimate).

NOTE: Total aid includes all grants, loans, work-study, and any other aid. Does not include those attending more than one 

institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates in the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in

Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Total aid Grants Loans
Education Financing

40 

Percentage Below Poverty Level and Government Aid Received 

Independent students were also analyzed with respect to the proportions with incomes 

below 125 percent of the poverty level as defined by the federal government, and the percentages 

receiving government benefits such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and 

food stamps (table 12). 

Almost one-third (29 percent) of all independent students had incomes that were below 125 

percent of the 1998 federal poverty level in 1999–2000. Single parents were not as well off as 

other independent students, and those enrolled in private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions 

were the least well off when compared with students enrolled at other types of institutions. About 

half (48 percent) of all single parent undergraduates had incomes that were below 125 percent of 

the poverty level, compared with about one-third (32 percent) of single students with no 

dependents, 12 percent of married students with no dependents, and 20 percent of married 

parents. When compared with other independent students, single parents were also more likely to 

receive TANF (6 percent vs. 1 percent), food stamps (8 percent vs. less than 1 percent to 2 

percent), and child support (17 percent vs. 6 percent). Both single and married parents enrolled at 

private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions were more likely to have incomes below 125 

percent of the poverty level than those at any other type of institution. This helps explain the high 

proportion of Pell Grant recipients among students enrolled in these institutions (discussed later 

in this report). 

Compared with married parents, single parents were not only more disadvantaged 

financially but also more likely to have childcare expenses (41 percent vs. 23 percent) (table 

13).13 In terms of the average number of children single parents had under the age of 12, no 

difference was observed between them and married parents. 

Financial Aid 

Although independent students overall were less likely to apply for financial aid than 

dependent students (61 percent vs. 71 percent), this difference was observed only among 

students attending part time (54 percent vs. 58 percent) (table 14). Full-time independent 

students were actually more likely to apply for aid than full-time dependent students (86 percent 

vs. 80 percent). 

 

13 When the average monthly childcare expenses for single and married parents were compared, no statistically significant 

differences were found. 
Education Financing

41 

Table 12. Among independent students, percentage who had incomes below 125 percent of the poverty level

Table 12. and percentage who received various untaxed benefits, by type of institution and family

Table 12. responsibilities: 1999–2000

Received

Temporary Assis- Received

Below 125 percent tance for Needy Received child support

Family responsibilities of the poverty level Families (TANF) food stamps payments

 Total

 Total excluding Puerto Rico 28.6 1.7 2.5 5.7

 Total 29.1 1.7 2.5 5.7

Single, no dependents 32.0 † 0.4 †

Single parents 48.2 5.6 7.7 17.1

Married, no dependents 11.7 † 0.5 †

Married parents 20.3 1.2 2.0 5.8

 Public 4-year

 Total 35.2 1.0 1.8 4.8

Single, no dependents 42.1 † 0.2 †

Single parents 50.8 3.5 6.8 17.5

Married, no dependents 16.6 † 0.0 †

Married parents 21.7 0.9 1.4 5.2

 Public 2-year

 Total 23.8 1.8 2.5 6.0

Single, no dependents 23.9 † 0.5 †

Single parents 43.3 5.6 7.4 17.8

Married, no dependents 9.0 † 0.6 †

Married parents 17.4 1.1 1.8 5.9

 Private not-for-profit 4-year

 Total 28.6 0.8 1.6 4.7

Single, no dependents 35.2 † 0.3 †

Single parents 45.0 3.0 5.5 17.7

Married, no dependents 13.2 † 1.1 †

Married parents 20.0 0.6 1.0 4.3

 Total 53.3 5.0 6.6 7.9

Single, no dependents 46.7 † 0.6 †

Single parents 72.8 10.7 12.3 13.7

Married, no dependents 23.2 † 0.0 †

Married parents 44.3 3.5 6.5 9.9

† Not applicable.

NOTE: The average income cutoff at 125 percent of the poverty level was $21,286 ($17,029 x 1.25) in 1999 for a family of four

people (from the U.S. Census Bureau). Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. 

Estimates in the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Total includes other institutions not listed

separately in this table. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS:2000).

 Private for-profit less-than-4-year
Education Financing

42 

While part-time independent students were less likely than full-time independent students 

to apply for financial aid (54 percent vs. 86 percent), those who applied were also less likely to 

receive any aid at all (82 percent vs. 94 percent). The likelihood of applying for aid also varied 

by independent student category. Married students with no dependents who had relatively high 

incomes and the highest average EFC were also the least likely of all the groups of independent 

students to apply for financial aid. 

About 85 percent of aid applicants, both dependent and independent, received some type of 

financial aid. Compared with dependent students, independent students who applied for any type 

of financial aid were more likely to receive grants (71 percent vs. 66 percent) and were less 

likely to take out student loans (37 percent vs. 50 percent) or to hold work-study jobs (4 percent 

vs. 13 percent). The average amount of financial aid received by independent students was lower 

than that received by dependent students ($4,800 vs. $7,400). This finding reflects the 

differences in enrollment patterns described above: independent students were more likely to be 

enrolled part time and concentrated in the public 2-year institutions, where the average price of 

attendance ($9,900 vs. $12,900–$18,800; table 9), the likelihood of applying for aid (50 percent 

vs. 68–95 percent) (table 15), and the average amount of aid received are all lower ($3,400 vs. 

$7,200–$9,700; table 9). 

Table 13. Among independent undergraduate students who had dependents, the average number of 

Table 13. dependents they had who were under the age of 12 and percentage with monthly childcare 

Table 13. expenses, by marital status: 1999–2000

Number of Number of Had monthly

dependents dependents childcare

Marital status under age 5 ages 5–12 expenses

 Total excluding Puerto Rico 1.3 1.4 29.8

 Total 1.3 1.5 29.8

Single parents 1.2 1.4 40.9

Married parents 1.3 1.5 23.3

NOTE: Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates in the table

include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).
Table 14. Percentage of undergraduate students who applied for financial aid and, among those who applied, percentage who 

Table 14. aid and the average amounts received, by attendance status, dependency status, and family responsibilities: 1999–20

Dependency status and Appliedfamily responsibilities for aid Percent Average Percent Average Percent Average  Total Total excluding Puerto Rico 65.0 84.2 $6,200 67.6 $3,500 44.2 $5,800  Total 65.4 84.3 6,200 68.1 3,500 43.6 5,800 Dependency and marital status Dependent 70.5 83.5 7,400 65.9 4,600 49.5 5,800  Independent 60.5 85.3 4,800 70.5 2,300 37.2 5,900  Single, no dependents 59.7 83.7 5,700 64.7 2,400 46.1 6,300  Single parent 64.7 89.2 4,700 81.8 2,600 35.4 5,100  Married, no dependents 46.1 81.8 4,300 58.3 1,900 32.4 6,300  Married parents 66.0 85.0 4,300 71.8 2,100 32.1 5,800  Full-time, full-year Total 81.1 90.6 8,500 73.5 4,900 57.2 6,300 Dependency and marital status Dependent 79.5 89.4 8,700 71.5 5,400 56.8 6,100  Independent 85.5 93.5 8,100 78.6 3,800 58.4 6,800  Single, no dependents 87.8 92.1 9,000 72.6 3,800 66.9 7,300  Single parent 80.2 96.6 7,400 90.6 4,100 52.3 5,800  Married, no dependents 80.9 89.2 7,300 62.5 3,200 52.7 7,300  Married parents 91.0 94.2 8,000 81.2 3,700 56.9 6,900  Part-time or part-year Total 55.7 78.8 3,800 63.2 1,900 31.5 4,900 Dependency and marital status Dependent 58.4 72.5 4,500 55.3 2,600 36.1 4,700  Independent 54.4 82.1 3,400 67.4 1,600 29.1 5,100  Single, no dependents 52.4 80.1 4,100 61.3 1,600 37.0 5,500  Single parent 59.8 86.0 3,400 78.1 1,800 28.2 4,600  Married, no dependents 39.7 79.0 3,000 56.7 1,400 24.8 5,400  Married parents 60.9 82.2 3,100 68.9 1,500 24.6 5,000 

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases for a reliable estimate).NOTE: Students were considered to be enrolled full time, full year if they attended full time for 9 months or more; they were considered part time or part year full time or attended full time for less than 9 months. Does not include those who attended more than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Eststudents attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Total aid Grants Loans 
Table 15. Percentage of undergraduates who applied for financial aid and, among those who applied, percentage receiving gra

Table 15. amounts received, by type of institution, dependency status, and family responsibilities: 1999–2000

Dependency status Appliedand family responsibilities for aid Percent Average Percent Average Percent Average Percent Ave Total Total excluding Puerto Rico 65.0 67.6 $3,500 34.5 $2,000 21.2 $1,700 25.7 $3

 Total 65.4 68.1 3,500 35.6 2,100 21.4 1,700 25.4 3

Dependency and marital status Dependent 70.5 65.9 4,600 28.8 2,100 23.7 1,900 34.6 4 Independent 60.5 70.5 2,300 43.1 2,000 19.0 1,300 15.4 1 Single, no dependents 59.7 64.7 2,400 37.0 2,000 19.8 1,500 17.9 1 Single parent 46.1 81.8 2,600 63.0 2,100 24.0 1,200 15.9 1 Married, no dependents 64.7 58.3 1,900 19.5 1,700 12.9 1,200 16.2 1 Married parents 66.0 71.8 2,100 42.1 1,900 16.5 1,200 12.2 1

 Public 4-year Total 72.5 64.7 3,200 34.3 2,200 22.9 1,800 23.7 2

Dependency and marital status Dependent 75.4 61.6 3,400 27.1 2,200 23.9 1,900 26.9 2 Independent 67.6 70.4 2,800 47.7 2,200 21.0 1,500 17.7 1 Single, no dependents 70.0 67.1 2,800 46.8 2,200 22.7 1,500 17.9 1

 Single parent 57.7 79.8 3,200 62.7 2,400 26.3 1,500 18.5 2 Married, no dependents 63.7 56.7 2,300 28.6 1,800 14.0 1,400 20.7 1 Married parents 74.0 74.5 2,500 46.3 2,200 17.8 1,500 15.1 1

 Public 2-year Total 51.2 64.7 1,600 34.1 1,700 19.5 900 15.0 Dependency and marital status Dependent 53.3 56.6 1,800 29.9 1,800 19.7 1,000 18.2  Independent 50.0 69.6 1,500 36.7 1,700 19.4 800 13.1  Single, no dependents 45.5 63.4 1,200 26.0 1,500 19.3 900 15.8  Single parent 35.8 79.7 1,800 57.2 1,900 25.7 800 15.0  Married, no dependents 57.7 59.9 900 12.6 1,500 13.0 800 10.7  Married parents 56.3 69.8 1,500 37.1 1,700 16.8 900 10.4 

See notes at end of table.

Total grants Federal grants State grants Institutional gra
Table 15. Percentage of undergraduates who applied for financial aid and, among those who applied, percentage receiving gra

Table 15. amounts received, by type of institution, dependency status, and family responsibilities: 1999–2000—Continued

Dependency status Appliedand family responsibilities for aid Percent Average Percent Average Percent Average Percent Ave Private not-for-profit 4-year Total 82.5 81.6 $7,000 30.9 $2,400 26.9 $2,500 55.7 $6

Dependency and marital status Dependent 86.4 84.3 8,500 27.1 2,500 28.7 2,600 70.1 7 Independent 75.8 76.3 3,800 38.3 2,300 23.2 2,000 27.5 3 Single, no dependents 75.7 71.8 4,300 37.2 2,500 24.5 2,500 32.6 3

 Single parent 63.0 87.0 4,300 58.7 2,400 30.4 2,000 30.3 4 Married, no dependents 76.7 69.2 3,500 19.2 1,800 15.8 1,900 30.1 3 Married parents 82.6 76.9 3,100 35.1 2,000 20.7 1,600 20.1 2

 Private for-profit less-than-4-year Total 93.8 68.5 2,600 63.6 2,200 10.7 1,900 5.3 Dependency and marital status Dependent 91.7 62.3 2,500 54.0 2,100 15.5 1,700 9.3  Independent 94.6 70.6 2,600 66.8 2,200 9.0 1,900 4.0  Single, no dependents 93.9 53.6 2,400 47.8 1,900 8.1 2,200 4.3  Single parent 96.4 90.3 2,700 87.9 2,300 10.9 1,800 4.2  Married, no dependents 87.6 31.6 2,800 27.1 2,100 4.3 ‡ 3.5  Married parents 95.2 72.7 2,500 69.2 2,200 9.0 1,800 3.7 1

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases for a reliable estimate).NOTE: Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates in the table include students attending post

Puerto Rico. Total includes other institutions not listed separately in this table. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Total grants Institutional gra

Federal grants State grants 
Education Financing

46 

The likelihood of receiving grants was related to marital status as well as whether one had 

dependents. Those who had dependents were more likely to receive grants than those who did 

not have dependents, regardless of marital status (72 and 82 percent for those with dependents 

vs. 58 and 65 percent for those without dependents) (figure 7). Controlling for whether one had 

dependents, those who were single were more likely to receive grants than those who were 

married (65 percent vs. 58 percent for those without dependents; 82 percent vs. 72 percent for 

those with dependents). 

Single parents who applied for aid had the highest likelihood of receiving grants (82 

percent vs. 58–72 percent) of all independent students. They had the lowest average EFC due to 

their lower incomes and family responsibilities and therefore could demonstrate greater need. As 

a result, they were more likely to be eligible for and receive need-based aid such as grants. 

Independent students who were single without any dependents were the group that was most 

likely to take out student loans (46 percent vs. 32–35 percent). Although they also had low 

incomes, they did not have any dependents and were not as likely to receive grant aid. 

Financial Aid Application Deadlines and Receipt of Aid 

Whether financial aid applicants receive grant aid is related to many factors, including the 

EFC, the price of attendance, whether they are enrolled full time, the type of institution attended, 

the source of the grant funds, and the availability of those funds. Federal Pell Grants are 

generally available to undergraduates at any type of institution participating in the federal Title 

IV programs if the student has an EFC low enough to qualify. State and institutional grant 

programs, on the other hand, vary widely in their eligibility requirements and are limited by the 

funds available. Among all aid applicants, independent students were more likely than dependent 

students to receive any type of grant aid, but this was driven by federal grants (43 percent vs. 29 

percent) (figure 8 and table 15),14 because they were less likely to receive institutional grants (15 

percent vs. 35 percent) and state-funded grants (19 percent vs. 24 percent). The lower percentage 

of students receiving state and institutional grant aid may have also affected the average amount 

of total grant aid received by independent students, which was lower than that for dependent 

students ($2,300 vs. $4,600). 

One of the many reasons that independent students may be less likely to receive state (and 

some institutional) grants is that these programs generally have early application deadlines, 

 

14 Among all full-time undergraduates who applied for aid, 62 percent of independent students received federal grants, compared 

with 30 percent of dependent students; the rates among part-time students were 36 percent and 27 percent, respectively. From the 

1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study Data Analysis System (data not shown in tables). 
Education Financing

47 

Figure 7. Among independent undergraduates who applied for financial aid, percentage who received grants

Figure 7. and loans, by marital status and whether one had dependents: 1999–2000

NOTE: Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates include

students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Percent of aid applicants who received grants

58

65

72

82

0

20

40

60

80

100

Married Single Married Single

Percent

No dependents Have dependents

Percent of aid applicants who received loans

32

46

32 35

0

20

40

60

80

100

Married Single Married Single

Percent

No dependents Have dependents
Education Financing

48 

frequently on the first of April or May, and independent students who intend to enroll in the fall 

are more likely to apply for aid later than dependent students. Among those enrolled at some 

time during the 1999–2000 academic year, independent students were less likely than dependent 

students to enroll during the fall term (72 percent vs. 88 percent). However, even among those 

enrolled in the fall, independent students were less likely than dependent students to file a Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) before May 1, regardless of institution level (45 

percent vs. 68 percent) (table 16). 

For purposes of analysis, this study divided undergraduates into two categories: “on-time” 

applicants and “late” applicants. These categories were based on the date they submitted a 

FAFSA. “On-time” applicants were defined as those who filed a FAFSA from January through 

April 30, 1999, while “late” applicants were those who filed during or after the month of May 

but no later than September 30, 1999. Even though students can file a FAFSA throughout the 

academic year, an application cutoff date (September 30, 1999) was used as a proxy for 

distinguishing between those students who intended to enroll in the fall and were applying for 

Figure 8. Among undergraduate students who applied for financial aid, percentage who received federal,

Figure 8. state, and institutional grant aid, by dependency status: 1999–2000

.

NOTE: Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates include

students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

29 24

35

43

19 15

0

20

40

60

80

100

Federal grants State grants Institutional grants

Percent

Dependent Independent
Education Financing

49 

financial aid for the fall term, as opposed to those who had planned to enroll the following 

spring. 

It appears that on-time and late applicants differed in a number of ways with respect to 

institution type, income, and attendance status during the fall term (table 17). Independent 

students who applied on time were more likely to be enrolled in public 4-year institutions (44 

percent vs. 26 percent), to be low-income (46 percent vs. 40 percent), and to be enrolled full time 

(63 percent vs. 56 percent). Among both independent and dependent students, on-time applicants 

were more likely to receive grant, loan, and work-study aid (table 18). 

Table 16. Percentage of undergraduates enrolled in the fall 1999 term and, among those enrolled, the 

Table 16. percentage distribution for date of submission of a Free Application for Federal Student Aid

Table 16. (FAFSA) during 1999, by level of institution and dependency status: 1999–2000

Enrolled April September

Dependency in fall 1999 May June July August 1999

status 1999 or earlier 1999 1999 1999 1999 or later

 Total

 Total excluding Puerto Rico 80.0 59.5 8.0 8.1 7.7 8.0 8.7

 Total 80.1 58.6 8.2 8.5 7.8 8.2 8.8

Dependency status

 Dependent 88.3 67.5 7.3 7.1 5.8 6.1 6.3

 Independent 72.4 45.4 9.5 10.6 10.6 11.4 12.5

 4-year

 Total 88.4 67.3 7.7 7.5 5.6 5.9 6.1

Dependency status

 Dependent 93.4 73.1 6.9 6.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

 Independent 80.2 54.3 9.3 9.7 8.1 9.0 9.8

 Total 72.9 44.8 9.5 10.4 11.1 12.2 12.1

Dependency status

 Dependent 80.0 51.9 8.4 8.9 9.5 10.6 10.8

 Independent 68.9 39.2 10.3 11.5 12.5 13.5 13.0

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the

1999–2000 academic year. Estimates in the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard

error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

FAFSA submission date

 Less-than-4-year
Table 17. Percentage distribution of undergraduate students who filed a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) b

Table 17. 1999, by type of institution, income level, and attendance status, by application date and dependency status: 1999–20

Private Private

not-for- for-profit

Dependency Public Public profit less-than- Low Middle High Enrolled status 4-year 2-year 4-year 4-year income income income full time  Total 43.0 29.8 22.2 5.1 36.7 49.6 13.8 75.3 Dependent 48.4 22.2 26.9 2.5 32.4 49.2 18.4 85.9 Independent 34.8 41.3 15.0 9.0 43.0 50.2 6.9 59.3  Total 48.8 25.2 23.9 2.2 34.9 50.0 15.1 80.8 Dependent 51.0 18.0 29.9 1.2 29.7 50.8 19.5 89.1 Independent 44.0 36.6 15.1 4.2 45.8 48.3 5.8 63.2  Total 33.7 39.3 17.3 9.8 39.4 48.9 11.7 66.5 Dependent 42.4 32.0 19.9 5.6 38.6 45.5 16.0 78.7 Independent 25.7 45.8 14.9 13.6 40.2 51.9 7.9 55.6 

NOTE: “Low income” includes those with incomes in the 25th percentile or below; “middle income” includes those between the 26th and 74th perce

those at or above the 75th percentile. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Categories are not mutually exclusive. Does not include those 

institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates in the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Total inc

listed separately in this table. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2

 Filed FAFSA before May 1, 1999 Filed FAFSA between May 1 and September 30, 1999

Type of institution

Income level At

 Total filed FAFSA before September 30, 1999
Education Financing

51 

There is no early deadline for federal aid for students enrolled in the fall. The application 

date was not related to the likelihood of receiving federal grants among dependent students (table 

19). However, among independent students, those who filed late were less likely to receive a 

federal grant (4-year institutions: 58 percent vs. 66 percent; less-than-4-year institutions: 59 

percent vs. 72 percent), even though the application date should have no bearing on the receipt of 

Pell Grants. Independent students who filed late may have been less eligible for Pell Grants—as 

well as state and institutional grants—because they were less likely to be enrolled full time and 

were less likely to be low-income.15 

Federal Financial Aid Programs 

Independent students were less likely than dependent students to apply for federal financial 

aid (42 percent vs. 57 percent), except for those enrolled in private for-profit less-than-4-year 

institutions. Those who did apply for federal aid were more likely than their dependent 

 

15 See table 17. 

Table 18. Among undergraduates who submitted a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) 

Table 18. before September 30, 1999, percentage who received various types of financial aid, by application

Table 18. date and dependency status: 1999–2000

Dependency status Any aid Grants Loans Work-study

 Filed FAFSA before May 1, 1999

 Total 90.5 73.9 62.5 16.4

Dependency status

 Dependent 89.3 71.4 64.1 20.1

 Independent 93.2 79.3 58.9 8.8

 Filed FAFSA between May 1 and September 30, 1999

 Total 87.1 68.0 52.4 5.3

Dependency status

 Dependent 85.8 61.7 55.1 7.7

 Independent 88.2 73.5 50.0 3.1

NOTE: Categories are not mutually exclusive. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000

academic year. Estimates in the table include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables

are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Percent who received aid

 
Table 19. Among undergraduates enrolled in the fall 1999 term who submitted a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FA

Table 19. percentage who received federal, state, and institutional grants, and the average amounts they received, by submissio

Table 19. institution, and dependency status: 1999–2000Dependencystatus Percent Average Percent Average Percent Average Percent Average Percent Averag Total 40.8 $2,400 33.2 $2,200 42.2 $5,100 43.4 $2,100 19.3 $1,70Dependency status Dependent 32.6 2,400 32.0 2,300 46.8 5,600 32.7 2,200 19.8 1,90 Independent 65.6 2,400 36.9 1,800 28.0 2,600 57.6 2,100 18.7 1,50 Less-than-4-year Total 57.2 2,000 34.1 1,200 22.5 900 52.4 1,900 25.0 1,00Dependency status Dependent 43.5 2,000 30.5 1,200 25.7 1,100 42.3 1,900 24.4 1,10 Independent 71.5 2,000 37.9 1,100 19.2 600 58.7 1,800 25.4 90

NOTE: Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates in the table include students atten

institutions in Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2

 4-year

Submitted FAFSA before May 1, 1999 Submitted FAFSA after Ma

Federal grants State grants Institutional grants Federal grants State grants 
Education Financing

53 

counterparts to receive a Pell Grant (61 percent vs. 34 percent), but less likely to take out a 

Federal Stafford loan (51 percent vs. 58 percent) (table 20). However, independent students who 

took out Stafford loans also borrowed larger amounts than their dependent counterparts ($5,500 

vs. $3,800). Average loan amounts were higher among independent students in part because they 

have higher annual loan limits for unsubsidized loans ($4,000–$5,000 higher than dependent 

students, depending on their class level) and because they were more likely than dependent 

students to take out a combination of both subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans (31 

percent vs. 13 percent). 

Independent students at private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions were the most likely 

to submit a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) (89 percent vs. 29–53 percent) 

and, among all independent students who applied, were the most likely to receive some form of 

federal aid. Private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions tend to offer shorter, full-time 

certificate programs. As a result, a lower proportion of students who attend these institutions are 

employed while enrolled. Students at private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions had the 

lowest median income of all independent students.16 They were also more likely to be single 

parents.17 These factors, in addition to a higher tuition than at public institutions, help explain 

why private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions had the highest percentage of Pell Grant 

recipients (71 percent vs. 54–62 percent) and the largest proportion of students who took out a 

combination of both subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans (62 percent vs. 10–44 percent). 

Independent students at private not-for-profit 4-year institutions who applied for federal 

aid, on the other hand, had the lowest proportion of Pell Grant recipients (54 percent), compared 

with independent students enrolled elsewhere (61–71 percent). Income had some role in 

determining their likelihood of receiving Pell Grants. Two-thirds (65 percent) of the independent 

students enrolled in private not-for-profit 4-year institutions worked full time, compared with 40 

percent of those enrolled in private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions.18 They were also more 

likely to be married (49 percent vs. 37 percent), which also raised their average income. 

However, they borrowed the most in Stafford loans ($6,800), compared with independent 

students enrolled in other institutions (between $3,500 and $5,700). 

 

16 See table 11b. 

17 See table 2b. 

18 See table 2b. 
Table 20. Percentage of undergraduate students who applied for federal aid and, among those who applied, the percentage rec

Table 20. and Stafford loans, and the average amount received per recipient, by type of institution, dependency status, and fam

Table 20. 1999–2000

Dependency status and Applied for Subsidized Un

family responsibilities federal aid Percent Average Percent Average only  Total Total excluding Puerto Rico 48.8 45.1 $1,900 56.3 $4,500 25.8  Total 49.3 46.3 1,900 55.1 4,500 25.4 Dependency and marital status Dependent 57.1 34.4 1,900 58.0 3,800 32.5  Independent 41.9 61.4 1,900 51.5 5,500 16.4  Single, no dependents 43.7 50.1 1,800 60.4 5,800 17.8  Single parent 50.6 79.4 2,000 43.6 4,800 16.3  Married, no dependents 24.8 35.5 1,600 57.5 6,000 12.7  Married parents 42.5 64.7 1,800 47.6 5,400 16.1  Public 4-year Total 57.7 42.3 2,000 67.3 4,400 32.3 Dependency and marital status Dependent 61.3 32.4 2,000 65.9 3,700 34.7  Independent 51.5 62.0 2,000 70.1 5,700 27.6  Single, no dependents 56.1 58.0 2,000 74.5 5,900 29.7  Single parent 51.4 77.2 2,200 66.7 5,100 28.7  Married, no dependents 39.9 40.7 1,700 70.8 6,000 19.3  Married parents 52.0 65.0 2,000 65.7 5,600 27.1  Public 2-year Total 32.6 52.7 1,700 21.6 3,000 10.3 Dependency and marital status Dependent 38.5 41.0 1,700 19.4 2,400 9.3  Independent 29.4 61.4 1,600 23.2 3,500 11.1  Single, no dependents 26.7 43.8 1,400 27.9 3,400 11.6  Single parent 41.8 77.1 1,800 19.2 3,100 10.4  Married, no dependents 13.2 33.3 1,400 24.7 3,900 5.4  Married parents 31.5 65.6 1,600 23.4 3,700 12.8 

See notes at end of table.

Pell Grants

Staffor

Stafford loans total
Table 20. Percentage of undergraduate students who applied for federal aid and, among those who applied, the percentage rec

Table 20. and Stafford loans, and the average amount received per recipient, by type of institution, dependency status, and fam

Table 20. 1999–2000—Continued

Dependency status Applied for Subsidized Un

and family responsibilities federal aid Percent Average Percent Average only  Private not-for-profit 4-year Total 67.1 36.5 $2,000 72.7 $4,900 39.7 Dependency and marital status Dependent 75.6 29.2 2,000 75.2 4,200 48.8  Independent 52.6 54.4 2,000 66.8 6,800 17.4  Single, no dependents 59.6 46.7 2,100 72.7 7,100 14.4  Single parent 58.0 76.1 2,100 61.5 6,100 22.9  Married, no dependents 37.3 31.4 1,500 72.8 6,900 18.8  Married parents 50.8 56.7 1,900 61.5 6,700 16.0  Private for-profit less-than-4-year Total 88.6 66.1 2,100 73.0 5,000 14.9 Dependency and marital status Dependent 87.6 53.4 2,000 72.9 4,200 32.5  Independent 89.0 70.5 2,100 73.0 5,200 8.9  Single, no dependents 88.6 50.2 1,900 80.7 5,700 4.1  Single parent 92.6 91.0 2,200 65.8 4,800 11.9  Married, no dependents 74.3 31.9 2,000 72.8 5,100 6.0  Married parents 89.2 72.9 2,100 72.8 5,100 10.4 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Esstudents attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Total includes other institutions not listed separately in this table. Standard error tables are availa

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Pell Grants Stafford loans total

Staffor
Education Financing

56 

Other Forms of Financing 

Because they had higher living expenses, independent students were more likely than 

dependent students to use a variety of other resources in addition to financial aid to pay for their 

education (table 21). Compared with dependent students, independent students were more likely 

to receive aid from their employers (14 percent vs. 3 percent) and, among those enrolled at 4-

year institutions, were more likely to claim a federal Hope or Lifetime Learning tax credit (25 

and 26 percent vs. 16 and 17 percent). Independent students also were more likely to carry a 

credit card balance (46 percent vs. 29 percent), and among those who carried a balance, the 

average credit card debt was higher ($3,800 vs. $1,900). However, the data available did not 

allow a determination as to the use of credit card debt to pay specifically for educational 

expenses. 

A proportion of independent students younger than age 30 also received financial 

assistance from their parents, although they were far less likely than dependent students to do so 

(12 percent vs. 44 percent).19 Parents of independent students were more likely to provide 

assistance to students who attended 4-year institutions, where programs are longer and the price 

of attendance is higher (about 15 percent vs. about 8 percent). 

Independent students enrolled in private not-for-profit 4-year institutions carried the 

highest credit card debt ($4,400 vs. $3,000–$3,800). Among all of the independent students 

enrolled at the various institution types included in this study, they were the group most likely to 

receive financial assistance from their employer (25 percent vs. 3–13 percent). When compared 

with those at public 4-year institutions, independent students enrolled at private not-for-profit 4-

year colleges were more likely to be older, married, and working full time. Because the income 

they receive from their spouses and from their own employment decreases their eligibility for 

need-based financial aid, higher levels of tuition make it necessary for those who take out loans 

to borrow larger amounts, from both the federal Stafford loan programs and through private 

credit agencies. 

 

19 Data on parental assistance for independent students age 30 or older were not available. 
Education Financing

57 

Table 21. Percentage of undergraduates who used other forms of financing and the average credit balance,

Table 21. by type of institution and dependency status: 1999–2000

Received

vocational

rehabilitation

and job Claimed Parents

Received training tax credit helped

Dependency status Percent Average employer aid benefits in 19991 pay tuition2

 Total

 Total excluding Puerto Rico 37.6 $3,100 8.6 1.0 17.7 34.1

 Total 37.5 3,100 8.5 1.0 17.6 34.3

Dependency status

 Dependent 29.1 1,900 3.3 0.5 15.7 44.0

 Independent 46.1 3,800 13.6 1.6 19.4 11.6

 Public 4-year

 Total 38.0 2,800 6.1 0.6 20.7 39.0

Dependency status

 Dependent 31.2 2,000 2.6 0.5 17.4 46.2

 Independent 50.1 3,800 12.2 0.8 25.8 15.3

 Public 2-year institutions

 Total 38.7 3,200 9.8 1.3 14.5 24.5

Dependency status

 Dependent 30.0 1,800 4.0 0.6 13.6 33.7

 Independent 44.1 3,800 13.4 1.7 15.1 9.4

 Private not-for-profit 4-year

 Total 33.0 3,200 11.5 0.3 19.8 50.8

Dependency status

 Dependent 22.8 1,900 3.9 0.3 16.4 58.6

 Independent 51.8 4,400 25.0 0.2 24.9 15.5

 Private for-profit less-than-4-year

 Total 36.4 2,800 2.2 3.8 13.2 18.0

Dependency status

 Dependent 27.8 1,800 0.8 1.4 13.5 36.5

 Independent 39.4 3,000 2.7 4.7 13.2 6.8

1

 Students who did not know if they claimed a tax credit were excluded.

2

 Applies to all dependent students and independent students younger than 30 years of age.

NOTE: Does not include those attending more than one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year. Estimates in the table

include students attending postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico. Total includes other institutions not listed separately in this

table. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Carried a credit

card balance
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
59 

Conclusions 

While independent status is determined primarily by age, what truly characterizes 

independent students and sets them apart from dependent students are their work and family 

responsibilities. Many independent students work full time and attend community colleges or 

other postsecondary institutions that are geared toward career training in specialized fields such 

as health, technology, and business. Working as many hours as they do, they are more likely to 

enroll in postsecondary institutions part time. 

Independent students are less likely than dependent students to apply for financial aid, and 

are less likely to apply for it on time, or before the typical May 1 deadline for state and 

institutional aid. This may be due to a number of factors: independent students are enrolled 

primarily part time and at lower cost community colleges, and they are more likely to earn an 

income from full-time employment. Among those who do apply for aid, independent students are 

less likely than dependent students to receive state and institutional grants, more likely to receive 

Pell Grants and, although they are less likely to take out student loans, the average amount they 

borrow is larger. 

Being married or having children are characteristics common to independent students, and 

while being married can raise one’s income, having children can increase one’s living expenses 

considerably. Because single parents have low incomes and higher living expenses, they are 

more likely to receive grants than other independent students, regardless of their attendance 

status. Students who are single and have no children can qualify for independent status when 

they reach age 24. They do not have the same family responsibilities as do other independent 

students but are considered financially independent because of their age. Although they also have 

lower incomes than married independent students, their eligibility for need-based aid is limited 

because they have no dependents. They are the ones who are the most likely to receive loans. 

The types and amounts of aid for which independent students apply and receive depend 

largely upon their family and work responsibilities, attendance status, and where they enroll. In 

short, their life circumstances, as much as their academic and career goals, work together to 

shape their varied needs. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
61 

References 

Berkner, L., Berker, A., Rooney, K., and Peter, K. (2002). Student Financing of Undergraduate 

Education: 1999–2000 (NCES 2002-167). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education Statistics. 

Choy, S., and Premo, M. (1995). Profile of Older Undergraduates: 1989–90 (NCES 95-167). 

U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Dunn, O.J. (1961). Multiple Comparisons Among Means. Journal of the American Statistical 

Association, 56: 52–64. 

Horn, L. (1996). Nontraditional Undergraduates: Trends in Enrollment From 1986 to 1992 and 

Persistence and Attainment Among 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students (NCES 97-

578). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics. 

Horn, L., Peter, K., and Rooney, K. (2002). Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary 

Institutions: 1999–2000 (NCES 2002-168). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education Statistics. 

Horn, L., and Premo, M.D. (1995). Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Education 

Institutions: 1992–93, With an Essay on Undergraduates at Risk (NCES 96-237). U.S. 

Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. (2004). Encyclopedia of Student 

Financial Aid. Retrieved August 27, 2004, from http://www.nasfaa.org/Apps/Eplus. 

Riccobono, J.A., Cominole, M.B., Siegel, P.H., Gabel, T.J., Link, M.W., and Berkner, L.K. 

(2002). National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000) Methodology 

Report (NCES 2002-152). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center 

for Education Statistics. 
References 

62 

Siegel, P.H., Whitmore, R.W., Johnson, R.E., and Yu, D. (2002). National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000), CATI Nonresponse Bias Analysis Report

(NCES 2002-03). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics Working Paper. 
A-1 

Appendix A—Glossary 

This glossary describes the variables used in this report. The variables were taken directly from the NCES NPSAS: 

2000 Undergraduate Data Analysis System (DAS), an NCES software application that generates tables from the 

NPSAS:2000 data. A description of the DAS software can be found in appendix B. 

In the index below, the variables are organized by general topic and, within topic, listed in the order in which they 

appear in the tables. The glossary is in alphabetical order by variable name (displayed in capital letters to the right of 

the label). 

Glossary Index 

STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Age as of 12/31/99................................................. AGE 

Marital status .............................................SMARITAL 

Dependency and marital status ..................DEPEND5A 

Veteran.........................................................VETERAN 

Orphan or ward of the court...........................ORPHAN 

Dependent status: Independent other 

 reason....................................................... OTHINDEP 

Gender ........................................................... GENDER 

Race/ethnicity ....................................................RACE2 

Parent’s highest education ............................. NPARED 

Local residence ..........................................LOCALRES 

Number of dependents.................................NDEPEND 

Number of dependents ages 5–12................NBDAGE2 

Number of dependents ages 0–5..................NBDAGE1 

INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT

Income .........................................................CINCOME 

Poverty level ...............................................PCTPOV98 

Independent student income percentile....... PCTINDEP 

Carried a credit card balance ................... NDCRDBAL 

Childcare expenses ...................................NBDAYCST 

Income percentile rank.................................. PCTALL2 

Work status ..................................................... ENRJOB 

FINANCIAL AID

Applied for financial aid ..................................AIDAPP 

Total aid.......................................................... TOTAID 

Total grants .....................................................TOTGRT 

Total federal grants ...................................... TFEDGRT 

Total work-study......................................... TOTWKST 

State grants ................................................. STGTAMT 

Institutional grants .................................... INGRTAMT 

Total loans (including PLUS) ....................TOTLOAN2 

Other grant aid .........................................OTHGTAMT 

FAFSA application date ...............................APPDATE 

Applied for federal aid ....................................FEDAPP 

Pell Grants................................................... PELLAMT 

Stafford loan total......................................STAFFAMT 

Stafford loan type ....................................... STAFTYP2 

Expected family contribution ............................... EFC4 

Employer aid ........................................... EMPLYAMT 

Parents helped pay tuition ..........................NCPARTUI 

Received vocational rehabilitation and 

 job training benefits................................... VOCHELP 

Price of attendance less total aid ...................NETCST1 

Price of attendance less all grants..................NETCST3 

ENROLLMENT AND INSTITUTION CHARACTERISTICS

High school diploma ........................................ HSDEG 

Delayed enrollment .................................. DELAYENR 

Type of institution ........................................ SECTOR6 

Level of institution ........................................AIDLEVL 

Class level in 1999–2000 ............................... UGLVL1 

Price of attendance ....................................BUDGETA2 

Attendance pattern..................................... ATTNSTAT 

Enrolled ..........................................................ATTEND 

Major field of study...................................... MAJORS3 

Carnegie classification ..................................... CC2000 

Control of institution ...................................CONTROL 

Institution level.................................................. LEVEL 

Tuition and fees............................................TUITION2 

Nontuition expenses ..................................SBNONTA2 

UNTAXED BENEFITS

Received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF).........................................................NDTANF 

Received child support payments.................NDCHILD 

Received food stamps.................................. NDSTMPS 
Appendix A—Glossary

DAS Variable 

A-2 

Age as of 12/31/99 AGE

Under 24 years 

24–29 years 

30 years or older 

Applied for financial aid AIDAPP

Indicates whether the student applied for financial aid. It measures the percentage of students who applied for any 

aid. 

Level of institution AIDLEVL

Highest award offering of the NPSAS sample institution attended by the student. Students who attended more than 

one institution during the 1999–2000 academic year are classified separately. 

4-year Denotes 4-year institutions that can award bachelor’s degrees 

or higher, including institutions that award doctorate degrees 

and first-professional degrees. These include chiropractic, 

pharmacy, dentistry, podiatry, medicine, veterinary medicine, 

optometry, law, osteopathic medicine, and theology. 

2-year Institution that does not confer bachelor’s degrees, but does 

provide 2-year programs that result in a certificate or an 

associate’s degree, or 2-year programs that fulfill part of the 

requirements for a bachelor’s degree or higher at 4-year 

institutions. 

Less-than-2-year At least one of the programs offered at the institution is 3 

months or longer, and produces a terminal award or certificate. 

No program at the institution lasts longer than 2 years. 

More than one institution Student attended another institution as well as the NPSAS 

sample institution during 1999–2000. 

FAFSA application date APPDATE

Indicates the application receipt date of 1999–2000 Federal aid applicants. 

April 1999 or earlier 

May 1999 

June 1999 

July 1999 

August 1999 

September 1999 or later 

Enrolled ATTEND

Indicates the student’s attendance status during the fall term (in September or October 1999). 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-3 

Attendance pattern ATTNSTAT

Combined attendance intensity and persistence during 1999–2000. Intensity refers to the student’s full- or part-time 

attendance while enrolled. Persistence refers to the number of months a student was enrolled during the year. 

Students were considered to have been enrolled for a full year if they were enrolled 9 or more months during 1999–

2000. Months did not have to be contiguous or at the same institution, and students did not have to be enrolled for a 

full month in order to be considered enrolled for that month. 

Full-time, full-year Student was enrolled full time for at least 9 months during 

1999–2000. Additional months enrolled could be part time 

(during the summer, for example). 

Part-time, part-year Student was enrolled less than 9 months during 1999–2000 

and all or some of these months were part time, or student was 

enrolled full time for less than 9 months during 1999–2000 but 

attended full time in all of these months. 

Price of attendance BUDGETA2

The attendance-adjusted student budget at the NPSAS sample institution is generated for students who attended only 

one institution during 1999–2000. It includes tuition and fees, books and supplies, room and board, transportation 

and personal and any other expenses as allowed for federal cost of attendance budgets. It is based on institutionreported student budgets for full-time, full-year students who applied for financial aid. Budgets for students who did 

not apply for financial aid were imputed by calculating the average nontuition budget amounts for aided students at 

the institution by dependency status and then adding the tuition and fees paid. Nontuition expenses for part-time and 

part-year students were adjusted to reflect the number of months enrolled and the attendance intensity. 

Carnegie classification CC2000

The 2000 Carnegie Classification includes all colleges and universities in the United States that are degree-granting 

and accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education. The 2000 edition classifies institutions 

based on their degree-granting activities from 1995–96 through 1997–98. Updated April 2002. 

Doctoral/research universities, extensive Institutions typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate 

programs, and they are committed to graduate education 

through the doctorate. During the period studied, they awarded 

50 or more doctoral degrees per year across at least 15 

disciplines. 

Doctoral/research universities, intensive Institutions typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate 

programs, and they are committed to graduate education 

through the doctorate. During the period studied, they awarded 

at least 10 doctoral degrees per year across three or more 

disciplines, or at least 20 doctoral degrees per year overall. 

Master’s colleges and universities I Institutions typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate 

programs, and they are committed to graduate education 

through the master’s degree. During the period studied, they 

awarded 40 or more master’s degrees per year across three or 

more disciplines. 
Appendix A—Glossary

DAS Variable 

A-4 

Carnegie classification—continued CC2000

Baccalaureate colleges, liberal arts Institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges with major 

emphasis on baccalaureate programs. During the period 

 studied, they awarded at least half of their baccalaureate 

degrees in liberal arts fields. 

Specialized and Other Includes categories listed below: 

 Master’s Colleges and Universities II: These institutions 

typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and 

they are committed to graduate education through the master’s 

degree. During the period studied, they awarded 20 or more 

master’s degrees per year. 

Baccalaureate Colleges-General: These institutions are 

primarily undergraduate colleges with major emphasis on 

baccalaureate programs. During the period studied, they 

awarded less than half of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal 

arts fields. 

Baccalaureate/Associate’s Colleges: These institutions are 

undergraduate colleges where the majority of conferrals are at 

the subbaccalaureate level (associate’s degrees and 

certificates). During the period studied, bachelor’s degrees 

accounted for at least 10 percent of undergraduate awards. 

 Associate’s Colleges: These institutions offer associate’s 

degree and certificate programs but, with few exceptions, 

award no baccalaureate degrees. This group includes 

institutions where, during the period studied, bachelor’s 

degrees represented less than 10 percent of all undergraduate 

awards. 

 

Specialized Institutions

These institutions offer degrees ranging from the bachelor’s to 

the doctorate, and typically award a majority of degrees in a 

single field. The list includes only institutions that are listed as 

separate campuses in the Higher Education Directory. 

Specialized institutions include: 

Theological seminaries and other specialized faith-related 

institutions: These institutions primarily offer religious 

instruction or train members of the clergy. 

Medical schools and medical centers: These institutions award 

most of their professional degrees in medicine. In some 

instances, they include other health professions programs, 

such as dentistry, pharmacy, or nursing. 

Other separate health profession schools: These institutions 

award most of their degrees in such fields as chiropractic, 

nursing, pharmacy, or podiatry. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-5 

Carnegie classification—continued CC2000

Schools of engineering and technology: These institutions 

award most of their bachelor’s or graduate degrees in technical 

fields of study. 

Schools of business and management: These institutions 

award most of their bachelor’s or graduate degrees in business 

or business-related programs. 

Schools of art, music, and design: These institutions award 

most of their bachelor’s or graduate degrees in art, music, 

design, architecture, or some combination of such fields. 

Schools of law: These institutions award most of their degrees 

in law. 

Teachers’ colleges: These institutions award most of their 

bachelor’s or graduate degrees in education or educationrelated fields. 

Other specialized institutions: Institutions in this category 

include graduate centers, maritime academies, military 

institutes, and institutions that do not fit any other 

classification category. 

Tribal colleges and universities: These colleges are, with few 

exceptions, tribally controlled and located on reservations. 

They are all members of the American Indian Higher 

Education Consortium. 

Income CINCOME

Students’ total income in 1998, including earnings, income from assets, and untaxed income. For married students, 

spouses’ income is included. Incomes were determined from the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), 

or if not available, from student-reported data or imputation. 

Control of institution CONTROL

Source of revenue and control of operations for the NPSAS sample institution attended by the student. 

Public Postsecondary education institution supported primarily by 

public funds and operated by publicly elected or appointed 

officials who control the programs and activities. 

Private not-for-profit Postsecondary institution that is controlled by an independent 

governing board and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of 

the Internal Revenue Code. 

Private for-profit Postsecondary institution that is privately owned and operated 

as a profit-making enterprise. Includes career colleges and 

other vocational institutions. 
Appendix A—Glossary

DAS Variable 

A-6 

Delayed enrollment DELAYENR

Number of years between the year of high school graduation and the first year enrolled in postsecondary education. 

Derived by subtracting the two variables. Because of frequent discrepancies between the birth year, high school 

graduation year, and first year of postsecondary education reported in CADE and CATI, these two variables 

required a substantial amount of editing and imputation. 

Did not delay 

Delayed enrollment 

Dependency and marital status DEPEND5A

Identifies independent students by marital status and whether they had dependents of their own. Married but 

separated students were classified as married. Students were considered to be independent if they met any of the 

following criteria: 

1) Student was 24 or older on December 31 of the current academic year; 

2) Student was a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces; 

3) Student was enrolled in a graduate or professional program; 

4) Student was married; 

5) Student was an orphan or ward of the court; or 

6) Student had legal dependents other than spouse. 

Single, no dependents 

Single parent 

Married, no dependents 

Married parents 

Expected family contribution EFC4

Composite estimate of the federal Expected Family Contribution (EFC) used in need analysis. For Pell Grant 

recipients, the EFC on the Pell Grant record in NSLDS was used; for other federal financial aid applicants, the 

primary EFC from the most recent CPS record was used if available; otherwise, the EFC reported by the NPSAS 

institution in CADE was used. For students who did not apply for federal financial aid (42 percent), the EFC was 

imputed by regression for each dependency status. 

Employer aid EMPLYAMT

Indicates total amount of aid received from employers in 1999–2000. It includes tuition waivers for employees and 

dependents and employer-paid tuition reimbursements. The percentage of students with employer aid is the 

percentage with positive amounts recorded for this variable. The average amount received is the average of all 

students who received employer aid. 

Work status ENRJOB 

Indicates the intensity of work while enrolled. 

Did not work 

Worked part time (less than 35 hours/week) 

Worked full time (35 or more hours/week) 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-7 

Applied for federal aid FEDAPP

Indicates whether the student applied for federal financial aid. It measures the percentage of students who applied 

for federal aid. 

Gender GENDER

Male 

Female 

High school diploma HSDEG

Indicates whether student earned a high school diploma. 

No high school diploma 

Earned high school diploma 

Institutional grants INGRTAMT

Indicates the total grant aid from institutional funds received in 1999–2000. Includes all institutional grants, 

scholarships, and tuition waivers received during the NPSAS year. Includes need-based and merit-only awards. At 

public institutions in some states the distinction between state and institutional grant funds is not always clear 

because grants are funded by the state but are allocated by the institutions. The California Community College 

Board of Governor’s Grants, California State University Grants, and Educational Opportunity Grants are classified 

as institutional grants. 

Institution level LEVEL

Highest award offering of the NPSAS sample institution attended by the student. 

4-year Denotes 4-year institutions that can award bachelor’s degrees 

or higher, including institutions that award doctorate degrees 

and first-professional degrees. These include chiropractic, 

pharmacy, dentistry, podiatry, medicine, veterinary medicine, 

optometry, law, osteopathic medicine, and theology. 

2-year Institution that does not confer bachelor’s degrees, but does 

provide 2-year programs that result in a certificate or an 

associate’s degree, or 2-year programs that fulfill part of the 

requirements for a bachelor’s degree or higher at 4-year 

institutions. 

Less-than-2-year At least one of the programs offered at the institution is 3 

months or longer, and produces a terminal award or certificate. 

No program at the institution lasts longer than 2 years. 
Appendix A—Glossary

DAS Variable 

A-8 

Local residence LOCALRES

Students’ residence while enrolled. 

On campus Institution-owned living quarters for students. These are 

typically on-campus or off-campus dormitories, residence 

halls, or other facilities. 

Off campus Student lived off campus in non-institution-owned housing but 

not with her or his parents or relatives. 

Living with parents/other relatives Student lived at home with parents or other relatives. 

Major field of study MAJORS3

Undergraduate major field of study among those with declared majors. Refers to NPSAS institution for those 

enrolled in more than one institution. 

Liberal arts/General studies Humanities: English, liberal arts, philosophy, theology, art, 

music, speech/drama, history/fine arts, area studies, AfricanAmerican studies, ethnic studies, foreign languages, liberal 

studies, women’s studies. 

 

Social/behavioral sciences: psychology, economics, political 

science, American civilization, clinical pastoral care, social 

work, anthropology/archaeology, history, sociology. 

Life sciences: natural resources, forestry, biological science 

(including zoology), biophysics, geography, interdisciplinary 

studies, including biopsychology environmental studies, life 

sciences, physical sciences, mathematics. 

Physical sciences: physical sciences including chemistry, 

physics. 

 

Mathematics: mathematics, statistics. 

Education Early childhood, elementary, secondary, special, or physical 

education, leisure studies, library/archival sciences. 

Business Accounting, finance, secretarial, data processing, 

business/management, public administration, 

marketing/distribution, business support, intern relations. 

Computer science/Engineering Computer/information science, computer programming; 

electrical, chemical, mechanical, civil, or other engineering; 

engineering technology; electronics. 

Vocational/technical Mechanic technology including transportation, protective 

services, construction, air/other transportation, precision 

production. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-9 

Major field of study—continued MAJORS3

Health Nursing, nurse assisting, community/mental health, medicine, 

physical education/recreation, audiology, clinical health, 

 dentistry, veterinary medicine, health/hospital, public health, 

dietetics, other/general health. 

Undeclared Undeclared/no major. 

Number of dependents ages 0–5 NBDAGE1

Student response to the question, “How many of your children are under 5?” Asked in student CATI. 

Number of dependents ages 5–12 NBDAGE2

Student response to the question, “How many of your children are age 5–12?” Asked in student CATI. 

Childcare expenses NBDAYCST

Student response to the question, “On average, how much did you pay each month for childcare during the last term 

you were enrolled in the 1999–2000 school year?” Asked in student CATI. 

Parents helped pay tuition (under age 30 only) NCPARTUI

Student response to the question, “Did anyone, such as your parent(s)/guardian(s) pay your tuition and fees on your 

behalf for the 1999–2000 school year?” Asked in student CATI (Yes/No). 

Received child support payments NDCHILD

Student response to the question, “Since July 1, 1999, did you receive child support payments?” Only respondents 

who received payments are included in this analysis. 

Carried a credit card balance NDCRDBAL

Student response to the question, “What was the balance due on all credit cards according to your last statement?” 

Asked on student CATI. Only respondents with a credit card balance are included in this analysis. 

Number of dependents NDEPEND

Number of dependents reported by the student not including a spouse. Dependents include any individuals, whether 

children or elders, for whom the student was financially responsible. 

Received food stamps NDSTMPS

Student response to the question, “Since July 1, 1999, did you receive food stamps?” Only respondents who 

received food stamps are included in this analysis. 
Appendix A—Glossary

DAS Variable 

A-10 

Received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) NDTANF

Student response to the question, “Since July 1, 1999, did you receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF)?” Only respondents who received TANF are included in this analysis. 

Price of attendance less total aid NETCST1

Net total price of attendance after all financial aid in 1999–2000. Equal to the attendance-adjusted student budget 

minus total aid (BUDGETA2 minus TOTAID). It represents the estimated “out-of-pocket” expense to students 

remaining after all financial aid, including loans, is received. For students who did not receive any financial aid this 

amount is the same as the price of attendance. Calculated only for students who attended one institution during 

1999–2000. 

Price of attendance less all grants NETCST3

Net total price of attendance after all grants. Equal to the attendance-adjusted student budget minus all grants and 

scholarships from all sources (BUDGETA2 minus TOTGRT). Grants include tuition waivers and employer tuition 

reimbursements. They do not include federal veteran’s benefits or military education benefits. For students who did 

not receive any grants this amount is the same as the price of attendance. Calculated only for students who attended 

one institution during 1999–2000. 

Parent’s highest education NPARED

The highest level of education completed by the student’s mother or father, whoever had the highest level. In this 

report, the variable was aggregated to the following categories: 

High school diploma or less Students’ parent earned a high school diploma or equivalent or 

did not complete high school. 

Some postsecondary education Students’ parent attended some postsecondary education, but 

did not earn a bachelor’s degree. 

Bachelor’s degree or higher Students’ parent attained a bachelor’s or advanced degree 

Orphan or ward of the court ORPHAN

Indicates whether student is an orphan or ward of the court. 

Other grant aid OTHGTAMT

Indicates the amount of grants that were not federal, state, or institutional, including National Merit Scholarships, 

other private aid, and employee tuition reimbursements received during the NPSAS year. 

Dependent status: Independent other reason OTHINDEP

Students under age 24 who are receiving no parental support and have not been defined as independent (e.g., having 

dependents, married, veteran, orphan or ward of the court) can be classified as independent by campus financial aid 

officers using their professional judgment. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-11 

Income percentile rank PCTALL2

Indicates income percentiles for all students. Calculated separately for dependent and independent students and then 

combined into this variable. Each ranking thus compares the student only to other students of the same dependency 

status. Uses parents’ total income if student is dependent and student’s own income if student is independent 

(DEPINC and INDEPINC). Total income in 1998 is used because this was the income reported on the financial aid 

applications and used for federal need analysis for the 1999–2000 academic year. Approximately one-fourth of the 

values are imputed. 

Low income (Income at the 25th percentile or below) 

Middle income (Income between the 26th and 74th percentile) 

High income (Income at or above the 75th percentile) 

Independent student income percentile PCTINDEP

Percentile rank of independent student’s annual income, including the income of a spouse, based on all independent 

students in the NPSAS survey year. The annual income is for the prior calendar year, as reported on the financial aid 

application or in the survey of students. Approximately one-fourth of the values are imputed. The cut-off points (in 

current dollars) for the income quarters are as follows: 

Lowest quarter (Income at the 25th percentile or below) 

Lower middle quarter (Income between the 26th and 49th percentile) 

Higher middle quarter (Income between the 50th and 74th percentile) 

Highest quarter (Income at or above the 75th percentile) 

Poverty level PCTPOV98 

Indicates total 1998 income as a percentage of the federal poverty level thresholds for 1998. The 1998 calendar year 

income was used to determine federal financial aid eligibility for the 1999–2000 academic year. Based on family 

size, total income, and dependency. Refers to the family size and income of the parents of dependent students or the 

student’s own family if independent. Derived from total income in 1998 and household size. A value of 100 or less 

means that the student’s family is at or below the federal poverty level threshold for that family size. Maximum set 

at 1,000 (10 times poverty threshold). Category used in this analysis is below 125 percent of the poverty level. 

Pell Grants PELLAMT

Indicates the federal Pell Grant amount received at all institutions attended during the NPSAS year. 

Race/ethnicity RACE2

Indicates undergraduate’s race/ethnicity. The category “other” includes those who reported other race and those who 

reported more than one race. Hispanic includes all who reported being Hispanic, regardless of race. 

White, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the original peoples of 

Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East. 

Black, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of 

Africa. 
Appendix A—Glossary

DAS Variable 

A-12 

Race/ethnicity—continued RACE2

Hispanic A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South 

American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of 

race. 

Asian A person having origins in any of the peoples of the Far East, 

Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent. This includes 

people from China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, India, 

and Vietnam. 

American Indian/Alaska Native A person having origins in any of the original peoples of 

North America and who maintains cultural identification 

through tribal affiliation or community recognition. 

Pacific Islander/Hawaiian A person having origins in the Pacific Islands including 

Hawaii and Samoa. 

Other A person having origins in race not listed. 

More than one race A person having origins in more than one race listed above. 

Nontuition expenses SBNONTA2

Indicates student budget nontuition expenses at the NPSAS institution, during the months attended. Equal to the sum 

of books and supplies, room and board, transportation and personal expenses. This is a component of the price of 

attendance (see BUDGETA2). 

Type of institution SECTOR6

Indicates the combined level and control of the student’s institution. Institution level concerns the institution’s 

highest offering, and control (public/private) concerns the source of revenue and control of operations. 

Public 4-year 

Public 2-year 

Private not-for-profit 4-year 

Private for-profit less-than-4-year 

Marital status SMARITAL

Indicates the marital status of the student when he or she applied for financial aid in 1999–2000. 

Married 

Single 

Stafford loan total STAFFAMT

Indicates the total amount of Stafford loans (subsidized and unsubsidized) received during 1999–2000, including 

loans borrowed to attend schools other than the NPSAS sample school. Includes Stafford loans delivered either 

through the Ford Direct Loan or the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-13 

Stafford loan type STAFTYP2

Indicates whether a student received a subsidized Stafford loan, an unsubsidized Stafford loan, or a combination of 

both in 1999–2000. 

Subsidized loan only 

Unsubsidized loan only 

Subsidized and unsubsidized loans 

State grants STGTAMT

Total amount of state grants and scholarships (including the federal portion of Leveraging Educational Assistance 

Partnership [LEAP] funds to states) received by the student in 1999–2000. At public institutions in some states the 

distinction between state and institutional grant funds is not always clear because grants are funded by the state but 

are allocated by the institutions (see INGRTAMT). 

Total federal grants TFEDGRT

Total amount of federal grants received by a student in 1999–2000. Includes Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational 

Opportunity Grants (SEOG), and a small number of Robert Byrd Scholarships. Does not include federal veteran’s 

benefits or military education aid. 

Total aid TOTAID

Total amount of financial aid received by a student in 1999–2000. Includes grants, loans, work-study, or any other 

types of aid, as well as loans to parents under the Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) program and 

veterans benefits and military education aid. The percentage of students with any aid is the percentage with positive 

amounts recorded for this variable. 

Total grants TOTGRT

Total amount of grants received by a student in 1999–2000. Grants are a type of student financial aid that does not 

require repayment or employment. Grants include merit-only scholarships, tuition waivers, and employer tuition 

reimbursements. The percentage of students with grants is the percentage with positive amounts recorded for this 

variable. 

Total loans (including PLUS) TOTLOAN2

Indicates the total amount of all student loans (federal, state, institutional, and private sector) and federal PLUS 

loans to parents received during 1999–2000. Does not include loans from family or friends to the student or 

commercial loans to parents (such as home equity loans). 

Total work-study TOTWKST

Indicates the total amount of all work-study awards received during 1999–2000. Institutions were asked to report the 

amount actually earned rather than the award amount, which may be greater. 
Appendix A—Glossary

DAS Variable 

A-14 

Tuition and fees TUITION2

Tuition and fees charged at the sampled NPSAS institution for students who attended only one institution during 

1999–2000. 

Class level in 1999–2000 UGLVL1

Indicates undergraduate class level. Seniors include 4th- and 5th-year undergraduates as well as all those graduating 

in the 1999–2000 academic year. 

Freshman 

Sophomore 

Junior 

Senior 

 

Veteran VETERAN

Indicates veteran status of the student. Based primarily on the student interview, supplemented with information on 

the financial aid application and the institution. 

Received vocational rehabilitation and job training benefits VOCHELP

Indicates the vocational rehabilitation and job training grant amounts received during 1999–2000. Funded by both 

the federal and state governments. Only respondents who received benefits are included in this analysis. 
B-1 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

The National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

The National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) is a comprehensive nationwide 

study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) to determine how students and their families pay for postsecondary education.1 It also 

describes demographic and other characteristics of students enrolled in the 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The NPSAS study is based on a nationally representative sample 

of all students in postsecondary education institutions, including undergraduate, graduate, and 

first-professional students. Information is collected from institutions, student interviews, and 

government data files. For this study, data were analyzed for undergraduates from the 2000 

administration of the NPSAS survey. This survey represents more than 16 million 

undergraduates who were enrolled at some point between July 1 and June 30 of the survey year. 

The institutional weighted response rate for this NPSAS administration exceeded 85 percent as 

discussed in the next sections. This report included only students who attended one institution 

during the 1999–2000 academic year, representing 95 percent of independent and 93 percent of 

dependent undergraduates. 

Overall Weighted Response Rates 

For NPSAS:2000, the institutional response rate was 91 percent. The weighted student 

response rate was 72 percent, and the weighted overall2 student interview (Computer Assisted 

Telephone Interview—CATI and Computer Assisted Personal Interview—CAPI) response rate 

was 66 percent (Riccobono et al. 2002). Because the CATI/CAPI response rate for NPSAS:2000 

was less than 70 percent in some institutional sectors,3 an analysis was conducted to determine if 

estimates were significantly biased due to CATI/CAPI nonresponse. Considerable information 

was known for CATI/CAPI nonrespondents and these data were used to analyze and reduce the 

bias. The distributions of several variables using the design-based, adjusted weights for study 

 

1 For more information on the NPSAS survey, consult the methodology report (Riccobono et al. 2002). Additional information is 

also available at the NPSAS website http://nces.ed.gov/npsas. 

2 The overall CATI/CAPI weighted response rate was computed as the product of the weighted student CATI/CAPI yield and the 

weighted institutional yield. 

3 Public 2-year and private not-for-profit 2-year or less institutions each had a weighted student CATI/CAPI response rate of 69

percent. Private for-profit less-than-2-year institutions had a weighted student CATI/CAPI response rate of 67 percent. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-2 

respondents (study weights) were found to be biased before CATI/CAPI nonresponse 

adjustments. The CATI/CAPI nonresponse and poststratification procedures, however, reduced 

the bias for these variables; and the remaining relative bias ranged from 0 to 0.35 percent.4

The overall institutional response rate could be interpreted as the estimated percentage of 

eligible institutions that would provide a student enrollment list or database that could be used 

for sample selection. The overall CATI/CAPI response rate is computed as the product of the 

weighted CATI/CAPI response rate and the institutional response rate. 

The two weight variables used for analysis of this report are CATIWT, which includes all 

undergraduates with an interview, and STUDYWT, which includes all undergraduates, including 

those without an interview. The CATIWT was used to generate tables 13 and 21 in this report. It 

was also used for the parent education and employment status variables found in tables 2a, 2b, 

6a, 6b, and figure B; and for the percentage receiving untaxed benefits found in table 12. 

Item Response Bias 

All the variables used in this report and defined in appendix A had item response rates 

above 85 percent. Therefore, a bias analysis for individual survey items was not necessary. 

Accuracy of Estimates 

The statistics in this report are estimates derived from a sample. Two broad categories of 

error occur in such estimates: sampling and nonsampling errors. Sampling errors occur because 

observations are made only on samples of students, not entire populations. Nonsampling errors 

occur not only in sample surveys but also in complete censuses of entire populations. 

Nonsampling errors can be attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain complete 

information about all students in all institutions in the sample (some students or institutions 

refused to participate, or students participated but answered only certain items); ambiguous 

definitions; differences in interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to give correct 

information; mistakes in recording or coding data; and other errors of collecting, processing, 

sampling, and imputing missing data. Readers interested in efforts to minimize nonsampling 

errors for estimates used in this report should consult the corresponding NPSAS survey 

methodology reports mentioned in the footnotes for the first two pages of this appendix. 

 

4 For nonresponse bias analysis, see Siegel et al. (2002), available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=200203. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-3 

Data Analysis System 

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the NPSAS:2000 undergraduate 

Data Analysis Systems (DAS). The DAS software makes it possible for users to specify and 

generate their own tables. With the DAS, users can replicate or expand upon the tables presented 

in this report. In addition to the table estimates, the DAS calculates proper standard errors5 and 

weighted sample sizes for these estimates. For example, table B-1 contains standard errors that 

correspond to estimates in table 6 in the report. If the number of valid cases is too small to 

produce a reliable estimate (fewer than 30 cases), the DAS prints the message “low-N” instead of 

the estimate. All standard errors for estimates presented in this report can be viewed at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. In addition to tables, the DAS will also produce a 

correlation matrix of selected variables to be used for linear regression models. Included in the 

output with the correlation matrix are the design effects (DEFTs) for each variable in the matrix. 

Since statistical procedures generally compute regression coefficients based on simple random 

sample assumptions, the standard errors must be adjusted with the design effects to take into 

account the stratified sampling method used in the NPSAS surveys. 

The DAS can be accessed electronically at http://nces.ed.gov/DAS. For more information 

about the NPSAS Data Analysis System, contact 

Aurora D’Amico 

Postsecondary Studies Division 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006-5652 

(202) 502-7334 

aurora.d’amico@ed.gov

 

5 The NPSAS samples are not simple random samples, and therefore, simple random sample techniques for estimating sampling 

error cannot be applied to these data. The DAS takes into account the complexity of the sampling procedures and calculates 

standard errors appropriate for such samples. The method for computing sampling errors used by the DAS involves 

approximating the estimator by the linear terms of a Taylor series expansion. The procedure is typically referred to as the Taylor 

series method. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-4 

Table B1. Standard errors for table 6a: Percentage distribution (by columns) of independent 

Table B1. undergraduates by selected student characteristics and family responsibilities: 1999–2000

Student characteristics Total Single Married Single Married

 Total † † † † †

Age

 Younger than 24 0.26 0.29 0.54 0.69 0.37

 24–29 0.67 0.64 0.86 1.42 0.48

 30 or older 0.64 0.63 1.14 1.59 0.68

Gender

 Male 0.75 0.60 2.16 0.96 0.80

 Female 0.75 0.60 2.16 0.96 0.80

Race/ethnicity

 American Indian 0.11 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.14

 Asian 0.24 0.50 0.43 0.32 0.27

 Black 0.71 0.59 0.52 1.32 0.78

 Hispanic 0.51 0.64 0.44 0.67 0.78

 Pacific Islander 0.07 0.14 0.20 0.09 0.12

 White 0.86 0.89 0.86 1.09 1.04

 More than one race 0.07 0.11 0.19 0.23 0.14

 Other 0.07 0.15 0.14 0.20 0.12

Income quarters

 Lowest 0.38 0.82 0.44 0.62 0.43

 Lower middle 0.45 0.69 0.83 0.70 0.71

 Higher middle 0.40 0.62 0.70 0.60 0.81

 Highest 0.42 0.33 0.78 0.43 0.72

Parents’ education

 High school or less 0.70 0.78 0.88 1.61 1.37

 Some postsecondary education 0.44 1.06 0.92 1.55 0.93

 Bachelor’s degree or higher 0.41 0.50 1.01 0.58 0.71

Attendance status

 Full time, full year 0.58 0.85 1.67 0.84 0.54

 Part time or part year 0.58 0.85 1.67 0.84 0.54

Type of institution

 Public 4-year 0.41 0.95 1.76 0.82 0.74

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 0.26 0.42 0.62 0.40 0.50

 Public 2-year 0.43 0.92 2.48 1.00 0.81

 Private for profit less-than 4-year 0.11 0.34 0.27 0.65 0.39

See notes at end of table.

No dependents Have dependents
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-5 

Statistical Procedures 

Differences Between Means 

The descriptive comparisons were tested in this report using Student’s t statistic. 

Differences between estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error,6 or 

significance level. The significance levels were determined by calculating the Student’s t values 

for the differences between each pair of means or proportions and comparing these with 

published tables of significance levels for two-tailed hypothesis testing. 

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the 

following formula: 

 

6 A Type I error occurs when one concludes that a difference observed in a sample reflects a true difference in the population 

from which the sample was drawn, when no such difference is present. 

Table B1. Standard errors for table 6a: Percentage distribution (by columns) of independent 

Table B1. undergraduates by selected student characteristics and family responsibilities: 1999–2000

Table B1. —Continued

Student characteristics Total Single Married Single Married

Work status

 Did not work 0.54 0.58 1.42 1.19 0.51

 Worked part time (less than 

 35 hours per week) 1.10 1.78 1.04 0.85 1.16

 Worked full time (35 hours 

 per week or more) 0.86 1.76 0.97 0.89 1.16

Residence

 On campus 0.24 0.28 0.21 0.44 0.37

 Off campus 0.32 0.66 0.39 0.71 0.37

 Living with parents 0.38 0.58 0.38 0.57 0.45

Delayed enrollment

 Did not delay 0.48 0.59 1.09 0.72 0.73

 Delayed enrollment 0.48 0.59 1.09 0.72 0.73

High school diploma

 No high school diploma 0.19 0.39 0.85 0.90 0.50

 Earned high school diploma 0.20 0.39 0.85 0.90 0.50

† Not applicable.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

No dependents Have dependents
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-6 

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the 

following formula: 

2

2

2

1

1 2

se se

E E

t

+

− = (1) 

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding 

standard errors. This formula is valid only for independent estimates. When estimates are not 

independent, a covariance term must be added to the formula: 

 t =

1 2

2

2

2

1

1 2

se +se - 2(r)se se

E - E (2) 

where r is the correlation between the two estimates.7 This formula is used when comparing two 

percentages from a distribution that adds to 100. If the comparison is between the mean of a 

subgroup and the mean of the total group, the following formula is used: 

 t =

2

sub

2

tot

2

sub

sub tot

se se 2 p se

E E

+ −

− (3) 

where p is the proportion of the total group contained in the subgroup.8 The estimates, standard 

errors, and correlations can all be obtained from the DAS. 

There are hazards in reporting statistical tests for each comparison. First, comparisons 

based on large t statistics may appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading since the 

magnitude of the t statistic is related not only to the observed differences in means or percentages 

but also to the number of respondents in the specific categories used for comparison. Hence, a 

small difference compared across a large number of respondents would produce a large t

statistic. 

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests is the possibility that one can report a “false 

positive” or Type I error. In the case of a t statistic, this false positive would result when a 

difference measured with a particular sample showed a statistically significant difference when 

there is no difference in the underlying population. Statistical tests are designed to control this 

type of error, denoted by alpha. The alpha level of .05 selected for findings in this report 

indicates that a difference of a certain magnitude or larger would be produced no more than one 

time out of twenty when there was no actual difference in the quantities in the underlying 

 

7 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Note from the Chief Statistician, no. 2, 1993. 

8 Ibid. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-7 

population. When hypotheses show t values at the .05 level or smaller, the null hypothesis—no 

difference between quantities—is rejected. However, there are other cases when exercising 

additional caution is warranted. When there are significant results not indicated by any 

hypothesis being tested or when a large number of comparisons is tested, Type I errors cannot be 

ignored. For example, when making paired comparisons among the four different categories of 

independent students, the probability of a Type I error for these comparisons taken as a group is 

larger than the probability for a single comparison. 

For example, in a comparison of males and females, only one comparison is possible 

(males versus females). In this family, k=1, and the comparison can be evaluated without 

adjusting the significance level. When students are divided into five racial/ethnic categories 

(American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, and White) and all possible 

comparisons are made, then k=10 and the significance level of each test must be p < .05/10, or 

p < .005. The formula for calculating family size (k) is as follows: 

k j j = ( ) −1

2 (4) 

where j is the number of categories for the variable being tested. In the case of race/ethnicity, 

there are five race/ethnicity groups, so substituting 5 for j in equation 4, results in the following 

family size. 

 10

2

5(5 1) = − k = (5)

For this report, when there were comparisons in which a specific hypothesis was not being 

tested, tests were adjusted to account for family size. Significant findings were reported only 

when p < .05/k for a particular pairwise comparison, where that comparison was one of k tests 

within a family. This procedure guarantees both that the individual comparison would have p <

.05 and that for k comparisons within a family of possible comparisons, the significance level for 

all the comparisons will sum to p < .05.9

 

9 The standard that p ≤ .05/k for each comparison is more stringent than the criterion that the significance level of the 

comparisons should sum to p ≤ .05. For tables showing the t statistic required to ensure that p ≤ .05/k for a particular family size 

and degrees of freedom, see Dunn (1961).