Patterns in Student Financial Aid at Rural Community Colleges By David E. Hardy and Stephen G. Katsinas David Hardy is Associate This article uses the 2005 Basic Classifi cations of the Carnegie Professor and Director of Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as a framing device Research, and Stephen through which to examine patterns of student fi nancial aid at Katsinas is Professor and Director, Education Policy America’s rural community colleges, which represent 64% of all Center, The University of U.S. community colleges. Rural community colleges serve more Alabama, Tuscaloosa. fi rst-time, full-time students than suburban and urban community colleges, and their 3.2 million students have different patterns of student fi nancial aid. Rural small and medium colleges have the most aided students, receive more Pell Grants and institutional aid, and have more students incurring loan indebtedness than do other types of community colleges. The article offers recom- mendations for future research, as well as for policy development and practice. L ow rates of adult educational attainment among the U.S. rural population have long been a challenge to educators and policy makers alike (U.S. Department of Education, 1994); this was part of the impetus for major federal poverty initiatives in the 1960s. Then, as now, accessible child care and transportation presented key challenges preventing larger numbers of students from enrolling. In addition, there are the twin challenges of encouraging rural high school students, par- ticularly in high-poverty areas, to envision themselves in college (and thus to apply for admission), and then to apply for fi nancial aid. All of America’s community colleges, whether rural, sub- urban, or urban, play an important role in serving traditional fi rst-time postsecondary students, as well as older and other nontraditional students (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). In this article, we discuss the 2005 Carnegie Founda- tion for the Advancement of Teaching Basic Classifi cations of Associate’s Colleges (Carnegie Foundation, 2006a, 2006b) and analyze fi nancial aid data from the U.S. Department of Educa- tion’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Fall 2000 IPEDS Student Financial Aid Cohort Study Survey (SFA). Our analysis and recommendations for policy, practice, and research are intended to add to the growing literature on rural community colleges in recent years (see Cejda, 2007; Eddy & Murray, 2007; Katsinas, Alexander & Opp, 2003). The 2005 According to the 2005 Carnegie Basic Classifi cations (Carnegie Carnegie Basic Foundation, 2006a; 2006b), 10.3 million students were enrolled at 2-year institutions in the U.S. in 2000–2001 in three major Classifi cations categories: (a) publicly controlled, (b) privately controlled, and (c) federally chartered and special use institutions. As Table 1 40 VOL. 38, NO. 1, 2008 shows, nearly 9.7 million students were enrolled at the nation’s 860 public community college districts and 1,552 campuses, and the 36 districts and 114 campuses of public 2-year colleges operated under the governance of 4-year public universities. The public community college sector is divided into rural, suburban, and urban community colleges, and the rural sector is further subdivided into small, medium, and large institutions. Of the 9.4 million students attending public community colleges, 3.1 million attend urban, 3.0 million attend suburban, and 3.2 mil- lion attend the 553 identifi ed rural community college districts and 922 rural community college campuses. (Urban and subur- ban sectors are divided into single and multicampus districts, whereas size determines the three rural classifi cations.) The Carnegie classifi cations utilize data from the 2000 U.S. Census, NCES IPEDS data sets, geographic information system data, and other institutional characteristics data gleaned from college and university Web sites, directories, and other sources (Carnegie Foundation, 2006a, 2006b; Hardy & Katsinas, 2007). The 2005 Carnegie classifi cations use annual undupli- cated headcount student enrollment, not full-time equivalent (FTE) student data. In practice, community college leaders plan for individuals, not FTEs, which do not translate to numbers of part-time students who enroll at peak usage times and need parking, counseling, and online access to computer systems. As noted in an American Educational Research Association panel discussion (2002), 2-year frames are needed to study 2-year institutions, rather than applying 4-year frames to community college students and institutions. The 14,269 mean enrollment at the 110 large rural districts in 2000–2001 (see Table 1) is similar to many urban and suburban colleges. In contrast, the 303 medium rural districts and the 140 small rural districts had mean enrollments of 4,642 and 1,699, respectively. Nearly 64% of U.S. community college districts are rural; they enroll over one-third of all community college students (Hardy & Katsinas, 2007). The Dominance Table 2 shows total student aid awarded by community colleges of Pell Grants in 2000–2001 as reported in the NCES IPEDS 2001 Finance Survey (Hardy, 2005). Between 92% and 100% of the colleges in each classifi cation responded. Of the nearly $3.6 billion awarded by U.S. community colleges, $2.4 billion (68%) came in the form of Federal Pell Grants. About $190 million was other federal aid, including Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG). State and institutional aid totaled $612 million and $250 million, respectively. Pell Grant awards exceeded state aid by roughly 4 times, institutional aid by roughly 10 times, and private aid by 25 times (Hardy). This disaggregation by student aid type illustrates the importance of Pell Grants to community colleges. State aid is the second largest category, ranging from 15% to 21% of aid NASFAA JOURNAL OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID 41 2005 Carnegie Basic Classifi cation. 185 Private nonprofi t and 555 for-profi t institutions repoabtribal, and special-use colleges.Note. Calculations of enrollment/district and enrollment/campus have been adjusted accordin TOTAL 1,764 2,629 Total, federally chartered and special-use institutions 43 138 Public 2-year special-use institutions 11 88 Tribal colleges 32 50 Special-use institutions Federally chartered and public 2-year institutions Total, privately controlled 2-year colleges 825 825 For-profi t colleges 614 614 Nonprofi t colleges 211 211 Privately controlled 2-year colleges b Total, all publicly controlled 2-year colleges 896 1,666 2-year colleges under 4-year universities 36 114 Total, publicly controlled 2-year colleges 860 1,552 Total 112 302 Multi-campus 68 258 Single campus 44 44 Urban-serving colleges/districts Total 195 328 Multi-campus 73 206 Single campus 122 122 Suburban-serving colleges/districts Total 553 922 Large (> 7,500 annual unduplicated enrollment) 110 217 Medium (2,500-7,500 annual unduplicated enrollment) 303 499 Small (< 2,500 annual unduplicated enrollment) 140 206 Rural-serving colleges/districts Publicly controlled 2-year colleges or Institutions Campuses No. of Districts Individual No. of Summary of Two-Year Associate’s Degree InstitutiTable 1 rte gly DCaM on d unduplic for both p 1.5 3.2 8.0 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.9 3.2 1.8 2.7 3.8 1.0 1.7 2.8 1.0 1.7 2.0 1.6 1.5 istricts mpuses/ ean No s, Acad ated credit enrollment for 2000–200 rivately controlled 2-year colleges an 10,304,321 6,137 93,868 2,183 71,136 6,467 22,732 710 521,788 705 369,471 666 152,317 823 9,688,665 10,813 265,693 7,380 9,422,972 10,957 3,181,009 28,402 2,611,348 38,402 569,661 12,947 3,027,986 15,528 1,563,767 21,421 1,464,219 12,002 3,213,977 5,812 1,569,547 14,269 1,406,512 4,642 237,918 1,699 Enrollment District Unduplicated Enrollment/ 2000–2001 Mean Total emic Year 2000–2001 1 d . total 2-yea 4,050 680 808 455 705 666 823 5,816 2,331 6,072 10,533 10,122 12,947 9,232 7,591 12,002 3,486 7,233 2,819 1,155 CampusEnrollmenMean r, t/ 42 VOL. 38, NO. 1, 2008 enditures, nstitutionalAid 19,943,754(8%) 63,642,368(25%) 45,527,099(18%) 129,113,221(51%) 44,398,881(18%) 77,255,461(31%) 250,767,563(100%) p I x of Total E Private Aid 3,103,378 (3%) 26,744,302 (27%) 20,004,857 (20%) 49,852,537 (50%) 19,295,443 (20%) 29,613,555 (30%) 98,761,535 (100%) s e g Percenta Local Govt. Aid 240,323 (2%) 949,468 (8%) 961,051 (8%) 2,150,842 (18%) 1,373,342 (12%) 8,184,521 (70%) 11,708,705 (100%) s a , s nstitution00–2001 State Govt. Aid 39,760,932 (6%) 146,595,861 (24%) 83,315,580 (14%) 269,672,373 (44%) 155,823,019 (25%) 186,894,968 (31%) 612,390,360 (100%) I0 Table 2d Two-Year mic Year 2 Other Federal Aid 9,533,468 (5%) 38,128,966 (20%) 30,335,684 (16%) 77,998,118 (41%) 42,350,214 (22%) 69,095,210 (36%) 189,443,542 (100%) ue to rounding. ee d licly ControllAcad Pell Grants 118,424,542 (5%) 522,833,123 (22%) 393,567,353 (16%) 1,034,825,018 (43%) 503,481,009 (21%) 879,152,338 (36%) 2,417,458,365 (100%) ay not sum to 100 b m u s P e nditures by Total Student Aid 191,006,397 (5%) 798,894,088 (22%) 573,711,624 (16%) 1,563,612,109 (44%) 766,721,908 (21%) 1,250,196,053 (35%) 3,580,530,070 (100%) ollars. Percentagfi cation. xpe U.S. dClassi Student Aid E aInstitutional Type Rural Small Medium Large Rural Total Suburban Urban TOTAL Note. Expenditures in a2005 Carnegie Basic NASFAA JOURNAL OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID 43 awarded within each community college type, and represent- ing 17% of all student aid expenditures nationally. Aid from institutional, private, and local government sources represent the smallest categories. Table 2 reveals a signifi cant fact: The largest percentage of every aid category (save local government aid) goes to students attending rural community colleges. Pell Grants account for the lion’s share—between 62% and 70%—of all aid provided within each institutional type. Together, Tables 1 and 2 show that rural community colleges serve 35% of total enrollments; their students receive $1.56 billion (44%) of all student aid awarded, of which two thirds (66%) comes in the form of Pell Grants. Urban community colleges enroll 33% of total students, who are awarded $1.25 billion in student aid (36% of all aid awarded), of which 70% comes in the form of Pell Grants. In contrast, suburban commu- nity college students are “less aided” than their rural and urban counterparts; these institutions enroll 32% of total students, who receive only 21% of total aid awarded, of which 66% comes in the form of Pell Grants. It is clear that Pell Grants are critical for students at all types of community colleges. Aid Patterns Tables 3–5 use the 2005 Carnegie Basic Classifi cations to show of Students at differences by institutional type for fi rst-time, full-time, degree- or certifi cate-seeking (FT/FT/DC) students as reported in the Fall Rural Community 2000 IPEDS SFA. The high rates of institutional participation in Colleges the IPEDS SFA suggest an acknowledgment of the “completeness” and representativeness of the data being analyzed. Among the 5.4 million students enrolled at U.S. community colleges in Fall 2000, 35% attended rural community colleges, 32% suburban, and 33% urban. The 511,049 FT/FT/DC students in the cohort comprised 9% of the 5.4 million enrolled. The 246,370 FT/FT/DC students enrolled at rural com- munity colleges constituted 48% of all students in the cohort, larger than the 27% served by suburban and 24% by urban community colleges (Hardy, 2005). Rural community colleges also clearly served larger numbers of FT/FT/DC students than their suburban and urban counterparts (13% of total enrollment, compared to 8% and 7%, respectively) Table 4 shows the numbers and percentages of FT/FT/ DC students at community colleges in in Fall 2000 who received any fi nancial aid, as well as the number and percentage of stu- dents in the entire IPEDS SFA cohort who received each type of aid and who were enrolled in each particular type of institution. In the Fall 2000 term, 1,881,147 of the 5,418,671 total commu- nity college students were enrolled at rural community colleges. A signifi cantly larger proportion of FT/FT/DC students enrolled in rural community colleges and received fi nancial aid than in suburban and urban community colleges. Of the 511,049 total students in the cohort, 246,370 (48%) were enrolled at rural community colleges; of the 288,583 students in the cohort who 44 VOL. 38, NO. 1, 2008 t FT/DC asntage of Allts in Cohor 6% 25% 17% 48% 27% 24% 100% o rounding. T/ceen e t Frd u eu d PSt 0 0 tudents ollege Students Total StudentEnrollment as Percentage of All tudents in Cohort 3% 16% 16% 35% 32% 33% 100% ges may not sum to 1 g Se C S enta ifi cate- Seekinociate’s Degre FT/FT/DC as Percentage of dent Enrollment 19% 15% 10% 13% 8% 7% 9% n U.S. dollars. Perc ertAss Stu es i 3C r Table Full-Time, Degree- or All Publicly Controlled Total Student No. of Enrollment FT/FT/DC 148,910 28,791 849,035 129,751 883,202 87,828 1,881,147 246,370 1,734,682 139,608 1,802,842 125,071 5,418,671 511,049 certifi cate-seeking. Expenditu First-Time, s a Percentage of No of Districts Reporting (% of total districts) 133 (95%) 298 (98%) 108 (98%) 539 (97%) 192 (98%) 105 (94%) 836 (97%) me, full-time, degree- or ssifi cation. a t-tiCla a Institutional Type Rural Small Medium Large Rural Total Suburban Urban Total Note. FT/FT/DC = fi rsa2005 Carnegie Basic NASFAA JOURNAL OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID 45 2005 Carnegie Basic CaNote. Expenditures in U TOTAL Urban Suburban Rural Total Large Medium Small Rural Institutional Type a Num lassifi cation..S. dollars. Percentages may not sum to 1 5,418,671 (100%) 511,049 (100%) 1,802,842 (33%) 125,071 (24%) 1,734,682 (32%) 139,608 (27%) 1,881,147 (35%) 246,370 (48%) 883,202 (16%) 87,828 (17%) 849,035 (16%) 129,751 (25%) 148,910 (3%) 28,791 (6%) Students Students Enrolled FT/FT/DC Total Total No. Receivber and Percentage of First-T 0 ii 0 due to rounding. FT/FT/DC = fi rst-tim 288,583 (100%) 181,232 (100%) 68,388 (24%) 48,144 (27%) 61,442 (21%) 37,712 (21%) 158,753 (55%) 95,376 (53%) 47,983 (17%) 27,528 (15%) 89,103 (31%) 54,384 (30%) 21,667 (8%) 13,464 (7%) Financial Aid Grant Aid Receiving Any Pell/SEOG FT/FT/DC Receiving FT/FT/DC ng Financial Aid, Fall 2000 me, Full-Time Degree- or CerTable 4 e, full-time, degre 149,621 (100%) 40,366 (27%) 37,658 (25%) 71,597 (48%) 21,484 (14%) 40,859 (27%) 9,254 (6%) Grant Aid State/Local Receiving FT/FT/DC tifi cate-Seek e- or certifi cate-seek 61,874 (100%) 9,576 (15%) 8,980 (15%) 43,318 (70%) 14,658 (24%) 23,110 (37%) 5,550 (9%) Grant Aid Institutional Receiving FT/FT/DC ing Students ing students. 77,061 (100%) 12,510 (16%) 15,966 (21%) 48,585 (63%) 14,628 (19%) 27,495 (36%) 6,462 (8%) Loan DebtStudentIncurringFTFTDC 46 VOL. 38, NO. 1, 2008 received any fi nancial aid, 158,753 (55%) were enrolled at rural community colleges. Rural small and medium colleges comprised 3% and 16%, respectively, of total community colleges enroll- ments, 6% and 25% of students, respectively, in the IPEDS SFA cohort, and even larger percentages (8% and 31%, respectively) of students who received any fi nancial aid. Of the 181,232 students who received direct federal grant aid (Pell Grants and FSEOG), 95,376 (53%) were at rural community colleges, compared to 37,721 (21%) at suburban community colleges and 48,144 (27%) at urban community colleges. Of the 149,621 students who received state and local grant aid, 48% attended rural community colleges, compared to 25% suburban and 27% urban. Of the 61,874 FT/FT/DC stu- dents who received institutional grant aid, 43,318 attended rural The percentage community colleges, compared to 15% each for suburban and of students at urban community colleges. More FT/FT/DC students at rural rural colleges community colleges take loans compared to similar students at who receive other types of community colleges. Of the 77,061 FT/FT/DC institutional students attending community colleges in Fall 2000 who bor- grant aid is more rowed student loans, 48,585 (or 63%) were enrolled at rural than double that community colleges. for students Although the federal and state grant aid percentages shed attending light on the fi nancial challenges students at rural community col- suburban and leges face, the willingness of these institutions to invest in their urban community own students is signifi cant. The percentage of students at rural colleges. colleges who receive institutional grant aid is more than double that for students attending suburban and urban community col- leges. Further, the percentage may understate the institutional investment; college offi cials completing IPEDS surveys might not include both need- and merit-based grants and scholarships in the numbers they report. In addition, college-sponsored work- study is not included in the IPEDS SFA. Table 5 shows the percentages of FT/FT/DC students in the IPEDS cohort, by aid type and institutional type. Among the 511,049 FT/FT/DC students enrolled nationally, 288,583 (56%) received some type of fi nancial aid. At rural community colleges, 64% of these students received some aid, compared to 44% at suburban community colleges and 55% at urban community colleges. The 75% and 69% fi gures, respectively, of students at the 133 small and 298 medium rural community colleges receiv- ing any type of fi nancial aid are striking: In general, the smaller the college, the higher the percentage of students receiving any and all types of fi nancial aid. Analysis of the IPEDS SFA cohort in Table 5 reveals very different fi nancial aid patterns at small and medium rural community colleges. Both rural and urban community colleges reported larger percentages of students receiving direct grant aid (Pell Grants and FSEOG) than their percentage of enrollments NASFAA JOURNAL OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID 47 Table 5 Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time, Degree- or Certifi cate-Seeking Students Receiving Financial Aid, by Type of Financial Aid Received, Fall 2000 Received Received Received Incurred Received Any Pell/FSEOG State/Local Institutional Student Institutional Typea Financial Aid Grant Aid Grant Aid Grant Aid Loan Rural Small 75% 47% 32% 19% 22% Medium 69% 42% 31% 18% 21% Large 55% 31% 24% 17% 17% Rural total 64% 39% 29% 18% 20% Suburban 44% 27% 27% 6% 11% Urban 55% 38% 32% 8% 10% Total 56% 35% 29% 12% 15% Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. a2005 Carnegie Basic Classifi cations. among all U.S. community college students. Table 5 reveals that for large rural community colleges, the percentage distribution for each aid category more resembles that of suburban and urban community colleges than small or medium rural community col- leges, except for the higher levels of student loan indebtedness. In contrast, 64% (89,103 of the 129,751 students in the cohort) at medium rural community colleges, and 75% (21,667 of the 28,791 students in the cohort) for students in the cohort at small rural community colleges reported receiving any fi nancial aid. Again, greater numbers of students at rural community colleges received institutional grant aid. Table 5 also shows different patterns in student loans at different types of community colleges. The percentage of stu- dents at rural-serving institutions as a portion of all students receiving institutional aid was almost fi ve times that of students at suburban- or urban-serving institutions. Similarly, the per- centage of students at rural-serving institutions as a portion of all students taking student loans was three times that of students at suburban-serving colleges and four times that at urban-serving colleges. Discussion Our analysis of student fi nancial aid data from IPEDS by type of 2-year college using the 2005 Carnegie Basic Classifi cations shows that access and utilization of all types of fi nancial aid is critical to community college students. Financial aid unquestion- ably provides new students with access to higher education, and rural community colleges are a major portal of access for millions of fi rst-generation, FT/FT/DC students. As Cohen and Brawer (2003) noted, the choice is often not between a community col- 48 VOL. 38, NO. 1, 2008 lege and another college; the choice is between a community college and nothing. These data also illustrate major differences across types of public community colleges by type of institution (rural, sub- urban, and urban) in the patterns of fi nancial aid utilized by their students. Often, the rural sector more resembles the urban sector than either of the two resembles the suburban sector. The Pell Grant program is by far the most important fi nancial aid program for all types of U.S. community college students. That rural-serving institutions award Pell Grants in percentages higher than their proportion of total enrollments suggests that this national program serves all types of needy students, and is not, as some assume, a program that is designed to assist primarily low-income, urban, minority students. As Alexander noted in 2002, federal direct grant aid programs are of great importance to community college students. Signifi cant differences exist in the fi nancial aid awarded within the rural community college sector. In the IPEDS SFA cohort we examined, 75% of students at small rural community colleges, and 69% of students at medium rural colleges, receive fi nancial aid; nearly 5 in 10 students at these small colleges, That rural-serving and 4 in 10 at the medium rural community colleges, reported institutions award receiving Pell Grants. The smaller the college, the more likely Pell Grants in its students receive aid. percentages Signifi cant differences exist in student loan indebtedness higher than their by type of community college. In the IPEDS SFA cohort, 63% of the students who reported incurring loan debt attended rural proportion of community colleges; by sector, rural community college students total enrollments incurred loan debt at rates more than double those at urban suggests that this and suburban community colleges. In general, the smaller the national program college, the more likely it is that students take loans. serves all types of One reason for higher indebtedness may be that students needy students. in geographically isolated rural areas live too far from home to afford commuting; there is a lack of publicly subsidized mass transit in rural America. This may add to FT/FT/DC students in rural community colleges’ greater reliance on financial aid for access. Moeck’s (2005) analysis of IPEDS surveys found 232 community colleges with housing, of which 90% (according to the new Carnegie classifications) were “rural.” Higher housing and transportation costs may explain the higher rates of indebt- edness at rural colleges. Implications for Policy, Practice, and Research Rural America’s educational attainment rates continue to lag behind those of other areas, and there are signifi cant gaps in information to help improve the rates. Special effort is needed to target expanded access for students served by small and medium rural community colleges—which include most of America’s rural counties with persistently high rates of poverty. The Appalachian Resource Commission (ARC, 2004) reported that its largely rural NASFAA JOURNAL OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID 49