Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment, 70004-70193 [2023-20385]
Download as PDF
70004
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 600 and 668
[Docket ID ED–2023–OPE–0089]
RIN 1840–AD57
Financial Value Transparency and
Gainful Employment
Office of Postsecondary
Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final regulations.
AGENCY:
The Secretary establishes and
amends regulations related to gainful
employment (GE) to address ongoing
concerns about educational programs
designed to prepare students for gainful
employment in a recognized
occupation, but that instead leave them
with unaffordable amounts of student
loan debt in relation to their earnings,
or with no gain in earnings compared to
others with no more than a high school
education. The Secretary separately
seeks to enhance transparency by
providing information about financial
costs and benefits to students at nearly
all academic programs at postsecondary
institutions that are eligible to
participate in title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended
(HEA).
SUMMARY:
These regulations are effective
July 1, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe
Massman. Telephone: (202) 453–7771.
Email: GE24@ed.gov.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or
have a speech disability and wish to
access telecommunications relay
services, please dial 7–1–1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
Executive Summary
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Purpose of This Regulatory Action
The Federal Government makes
significant annual investments under
title IV of the HEA through programs
that provide financial assistance to help
students pay for postsecondary
education and training. This includes
both Federal grants and Federal loans,
with the largest amount of such aid
flowing through Pell Grants and Direct
Loans. These investments in education
amount to well over $100 billion in new
Pell Grants and Direct Loans in total
made each year.1
1 Note that the dollar figure in the text above
refers to the sum of all Pell Grants and Direct Loans
made each year. The cost of Direct Loans, which is
the lion’s share of this amount, to the Federal
Government is less than the amount disbursed since
borrowers repay, as expanded on below. This final
rule affects a small fraction of the total amount, as
detailed below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:48 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
The Federal Government’s
commitment to postsecondary
education and training is well-justified.
Postsecondary education and training
generate important benefits both to the
students pursuing new knowledge and
skills and to the Nation overall. Higher
education increases wages and lowers
unemployment risk,2 and leads to
myriad non-financial benefits including
better health, job satisfaction, and
overall happiness.3 In addition,
increasing the number of individuals
with postsecondary education creates
social benefits, including productivity
spillovers from a better educated and
more flexible workforce,4 increased
civic participation,5 improvements in
health and well-being for the next
generation,6 and innumerable intangible
benefits that elude quantification. In
addition, the improvements in
productivity and earnings lead to
increases in tax revenues from higher
earnings and lower rates of reliance on
social safety net programs. These
downstream increases in net revenue to
the Government can be so large that
public investments in higher education,
including those that Congress
established in title IV, HEA, more than
pay for themselves.7
These benefits are not guaranteed,
however. Research has demonstrated
that the returns, especially the gains in
earnings students enjoy as a result of
their education, vary dramatically
across institutions and among programs
within those institutions.8 As we
illustrate in the Regulatory Impact
2 Barrow, L. & Malamud, O. (2015). Is College a
Worthwhile Investment? Annual Review of
Economics, 7(1), 519–555. Card, D. (1999). The
Causal Effect of Education on Earnings. Handbook
of Labor Economics, 3, 1801–1863.
3 Oreopoulos, P. & Salvanes, K.G. (2011).
Priceless: The Nonpecuniary Benefits of Schooling.
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(1), 159–184.
4 Moretti, E. (2004). Workers’ Education,
Spillovers, and Productivity: Evidence from PlantLevel Production Functions. American Economic
Review, 94(3), 656–690.
5 Dee, T.S. (2004). Are There Civic Returns to
Education? Journal of Public Economics, 88(9–10),
1697–1720.
6 Currie, J. & Moretti, E. (2003). Mother’s
Education and the Intergenerational Transmission
of Human Capital: Evidence from College Openings.
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1495–
1532.
7 Hendren, N. & Sprung-Keyser, B. (2020). A
Unified Welfare Analysis of Government Policies.
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135(3), 1209–
1318.
8 Hoxby, C.M. (2019). The Productivity of U.S.
Postsecondary Institutions. In Productivity in
Higher Education, Hoxby, C.M. & Stange, K.M.
(eds). University of Chicago Press. Lovenheim, M.
& Smith, J. (2023). Returns to Different
Postsecondary Investments: Institution Type,
Academic Programs, and Credentials. In Handbook
of the Economics of Education Volume 6,
Hanushek, E., Woessmann, E. & Machin, S. (eds).
New Holland.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Analysis (RIA) of this final rule, even
among the same types of programs—that
is, among programs with similar
academic levels and fields of study—
both the costs and the outcomes for
students differ widely. Most
postsecondary programs provide
benefits to students in the form of
higher wages that help them repay any
loans they may have obtained to attend
the program. But too many programs fail
to increase graduates’ wages, having
little or even negative effects on
graduates’ earnings.9 At the same time,
too many programs charge much higher
tuition than similar programs with
comparable outcomes, leading students
to borrow much more than they would
have needed had they chosen a more
affordable program.
While increased borrowing is
indicative of higher education costs-ofattendance, financing the costs of
postsecondary education and training
with Federal student loans creates
significant risk for borrowers and the
Federal Government (as well as
taxpayers). In particular, if students’
earnings after college are low, then they
are likely to face difficulty in repaying
their loans and will be more likely to
default. The associated penalties and
delays in repayment make the student
loan more costly to repay, and, by
damaging the borrower’s credit, may
also increase costs of other borrowing
considerably.10 From the Federal
Government’s perspective, if borrowers
earn less, then they are also entitled to
repay less of their loans under IncomeDriven Repayment (IDR) plans and can
have their loans forgiven after preset
amounts of time in repayment. And if
borrowers default on a loan, they may
end up repaying less than they
borrowed depending on the success of
various collections tools available to the
Government. As a result, low labor
market earnings and low earnings
relative to debt both drive up the costs,
to both the borrower and taxpayers, of
9 Cellini, S. & Turner, N. (2018). Gainfully
Employed? Assessing the Employment and
Earnings of For-Profit College Students Using
Administrative Data. Journal of Human Resources,
54(2).
10 For example, a 2023 Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau analysis suggests that a default
on a borrower’s credit record could lower their
credit score by about 50 points, which might result
in an additional cost of $1,700 on a typical auto
loan due to less favorable interest terms. Gibbs,
Christa (2023). Initial Fresh Start Program Changes
Followed by Increased Credit Scores for Affected
Student Loan Borrowers. Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (https://
www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/initialfresh-start-program-changes-followed-by-increasedcredit-scores-for-affected-borrowers/).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
postsecondary investments financed
with student loans.
With college tuition consistently
rising faster than inflation, and given
the growing necessity of a
postsecondary credential to compete in
today’s economy, it is critical for
students, families, and taxpayers alike
to have accurate and transparent
information about the possible financial
consequences of their postsecondary
program options. Providing information
on the typical earnings outcomes,
borrowing amounts, costs of attendance,
and sources of financial aid—and
providing it directly to prospective
students in a salient way at a key
moment in their decision-making
process—would help students make
more informed choices. The same
information will also allow taxpayers
and college stakeholders to better assess
whether public and private resources
are being effectively used. For many
students, and for many stakeholders,
these financial considerations would,
appropriately, be just one of many
factors used in deciding whether and
where to enroll. But as noted throughout
this final rule including the RIA, it is
clear that both prospective students and
the population in general consider these
financial factors as among the most
important in assessing postsecondary
education performance.
For programs that consistently
produce graduates with very low
earnings, or with earnings that are too
low to repay the amount the typical
graduate borrows to complete a
credential, additional measures are
needed to protect students from
financial harm. Making information
available has been shown to improve
consequential financial choices across a
variety of settings. But it has also been
shown to be a limited remedy,
especially for more vulnerable
populations who may struggle to access
the information, or who have less
support in interpreting and acting upon
the relevant information.11
To address these issues, the
Department establishes subparts Q and
S of part 668, and makes supporting
amendments to §§ 600.10, 600.21, 668.2,
668.13, 668.43, and 668.91.
11 Baker, Dominique J., Cellini, Stephanie Riegg,
Scott-Clayton, Judith & Turner, Lesley J. (2021).
Why Information Alone Is Not Enough to Improve
Higher Education Outcomes. The Brookings
Institution (www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-centerchalkboard/2021/12/14/why-information-alone-isnot-enough-to-improve-higher-education-outcomes/
). Steffel, Mary, Kramer II, Dennis A., McHugh,
Walter & Ducoff, Nick (2019). Information
Disclosure and College Choice. The Brookings
Institution (www.brookings.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2020/11/ES-11.23.20-Steffel-et-al-1.pdf).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
(1) In subpart Q, we establish a
financial value transparency framework.
That framework will increase the
quality and availability of information
provided directly to students about the
costs, sources of financial aid, and
outcomes of students enrolled in all
eligible programs. In part, the
transparency framework establishes
measures of enhanced earnings and
affordable debt—more specifically, the
earnings premium (EP measure) that
typical program graduates experience
relative to the earnings of typical high
school graduates, as well as the debt
service burden (debt-to-earnings ratio or
D/E rates measure) for typical graduates.
It further establishes performance
benchmarks for each measure, denoting
a threshold level of performance below
which the program may have adverse
financial consequences to students. This
information will be made available to all
students via a program information
website maintained by the Department
and described in amended § 668.43. For
programs that do not meet the
performance benchmarks for the D/E
rates measure, prospective students will
be required to acknowledge having
viewed these disclosures before entering
into enrollment agreements with an
institution. Further, the Department’s
program information website will
provide the public, taxpayers, and the
Government with relevant information
with which they may act to better
safeguard the Federal investment in
these programs. The transparency
framework will also provide institutions
with meaningful information that they
can use to compare their performance to
other institutions and improve student
outcomes in these programs.
(2) In subpart S, we establish an
accountability and eligibility framework
for gainful employment programs. This
GE program accountability framework is
specific to educational programs that, as
a statutory condition of eligibility to
participate in title IV, HEA, are required
to provide training that prepares
students for gainful employment in a
recognized occupation or profession (GE
programs). GE programs include nearly
all educational programs at for-profit
institutions of higher education, as well
as non-degree programs at public and
private nonprofit institutions such as
community colleges. The GE program
eligibility framework will use the same
earnings premium and debt-burden
measures from the transparency
framework to determine whether a GE
program remains eligible for title IV,
HEA participation. The GE eligibility
criteria define what it means to prepare
students for gainful employment in a
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70005
recognized occupation, and they tie
program eligibility to whether GE
programs provide education and
training to their title IV, HEA students
that lead to earnings beyond those of
high school graduates and sufficient to
allow students to repay their student
loans. GE programs that fail the same
measure in any two out of three
consecutive years for which the measure
is calculated will not be eligible to
participate in title IV, HEA programs.
The Department has previously issued
regulations on these issues three times.
We refer to those regulatory actions as
the 2011 Prior Rule (76 FR 34385), the
2014 Prior Rule (79 FR 64889), and the
2019 Prior Rule (84 FR 31392), which
rescinded the 2014 Prior Rule. For a
detailed discussion of the history of
these regulations, please see the
Background section of the notice of
proposed rulemaking that was
published in the Federal Register on
May 19, 2023 (88 FR 32300) (NPRM).
This final rule departs from the 2019
Prior Rule and partly reinstates
provisions of the 2014 Prior Rule, but
this final rule also departs in certain
respects from the 2014 Prior Rule to
improve the regulations in light of new
data and current circumstances, as
discussed in the NPRM.12
The financial value transparency
framework covers all programs that
participate in the title IV, HEA
programs, and it will dramatically
enhance the quality of information
available to all students so that they
may better assess the financial
consequences of their education
choices. As explained in the NPRM and
elaborated below, the framework will
improve on the information currently
available to students by generating
program-level information on cost of
attendance and available aid for all
types of students and by ensuring the
information is delivered to students.
The acknowledgment requirements
ensure this information is viewed before
students enroll when performance
measures indicate a heightened risk of
adverse borrowing outcomes for
students.
With respect to GE programs, the
Department remains concerned about
the same problems that motivated our
2011 and 2014 Prior Rules. These
included the growth in student loan
debt generally, and especially increased
borrowing at private for-profit colleges,
increasingly high rates of default, higher
costs, and lawsuits and investigations
into the deceptive practices of many
institutions.
12 88
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
FR 32300, 32306 (May 19, 2023).
10OCR2
70006
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Overall, the amount of outstanding
student loan debt is even higher than it
was at the time of the 2014 Prior Rule.
Then we cited a total portfolio of
$1,096.5 billion. It is now 49 percent
larger—at $1,634 billion outstanding.
The number of individuals with
outstanding student loans is also 3.5
million higher.13
The 2011 and 2014 rules were issued
during a time of growth at private forprofit colleges when the Department
was concerned about the effects of such
growth. While the sector is not currently
growing at the rates it did at that time,
its 12-month full-time-equivalent
enrollment in 2020–21 was above its
levels in 2017–18.14 During those years,
enrollment in private for-profit colleges
grew 5 percent even as public and
private nonprofit institutions saw a 7
percent decline. Similarly, the share of
title IV, HEA funds going to private forprofit colleges in 2020–21 was at the
same level as in 2016–17.15
Loan usage at private for-profit
colleges also remains high. In the 2014
Prior Rule we noted concerns that the
borrowing rate in 2011–12 among lessthan-two-year institutions was 60
percent at private for-profit institutions
versus 10 percent at public
institutions.16 Data from 2019–20 show
that 63 percent of students in less-thantwo-year private for-profit institutions
took out loans compared to 18 percent
of those at public colleges, though the
estimate for public colleges has a high
standard error.17 In fact, the borrowing
13 U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student
Aid (2023). Federal Student Aid Portfolio Summary
(data set). National Student Loan Data System
(NSLDS) (https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/
fsawg/datacenter/library/PortfolioSummary.xls).
14 See U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics (2021). Table 8.
Twelve-month full-time-equivalent enrollment at
Title IV institutions, by student level, level and
control of institution: United States, 2020–21.
IPEDS Data Explorer (https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/
Search?query=&query2=&resultType=all
&page=1&sortBy=date_desc&overlay
TableId=32468). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics (2018).
Table 8. Twelve-month full-time-equivalent
enrollment at Title IV institutions, by student level,
level and control of institution: United States,
2017–18. IPEDS Data Explorer (https://nces.ed.gov/
ipeds/Search?query=&query2=&resultType=
all&page=1&sortBy=date_
desc&overlayTableId=25212).
15 U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student
Aid (2023). 2022–2023 Grant and Loan Volume by
School Type (data set). FSA Data Center (https://
studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/fsawg/datacenter/
library/SummarybySchoolType.xls).
16 U.S. Department of Education (2014). Program
Integrity: Gainful Employment. 79 FR 65033,
October 31, 2014. Federal Register, 34 CFR parts
600 and 668 (Docket ID ED–2014–OPE–0039)
(https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2014-25594/p2324).
17 Cameron, M., Johnson, R., Lacy, T.A., Wu, J.,
Siegel, P., Holley, J., Wine, J. & RTI International
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
rate at two-year and less-than-two-year
private for-profit colleges in 2019–20
was higher than in 2015–2016. And
among two-year for-profit colleges it
even exceeds the rates in 2011–12.18
Issues with default rates also did not
abate between 2014 and the national
pause on student loan payments and
interest in 2020 due to the COVID–19
national emergency. From 2015 to 2019
there were still more than 1 million new
Direct Loan defaults a year. And the
number of new Direct Loan defaults in
the 2019 fiscal year was higher than in
2015.19 The official cohort default rates
did see slight declines from fiscal year
2012 to fiscal year 2017 (the last cohort
before the pause would affect results).
But the decline in the overall rate was
nearly double what it was at private forprofit colleges (a reduction of 2.1
percentage points versus 1.1 percentage
points).20 And this is despite the closure
of large for-profit colleges with poor
track records, such as ITT Technical
Institute and Corinthian Colleges.
Regarding lawsuits and investigations,
the Department notes that these actions
still continue today. Just last year the
California Department of Justice won its
(2023). Table A–1. Selected financial aid receipt:
Percentage of undergraduates receiving selected
types of financial aid. In 2019–20 National
Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:20) First
Look at Student Financial Aid Estimates for 2019–
20 (NCES 2023–466). U.S. Department of Education
(https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2023/2023466.pdf).
18 Compare the previous citation with Radwin, D.,
Wine, J., Siegel, P., Bryan, M. & RTI International
(2013). Table 1. Percentage of undergraduates
receiving selected types of financial aid, by type of
institution, attendance pattern, dependency status,
and income level: 2011–12. In 2011–12 National
Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:12)
Student Financial Aid Estimates for 2011–12 (NCES
2013–165). U.S. Department of Education (https://
nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013165.pdf). Radwin, D.,
Conzelmann, J. G., Nunnery, A., Lacy, T. A., Wu,
J., Lew, S., Wine, J., Siegel, P. & RTI International
(2018). Table 1. Percentage of undergraduates
receiving selected types of financial aid, by control
and level of institution, attendance pattern,
dependency status, and income level: 2015–16. In
2015–16 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study
(NPSAS:16) Student Financial Aid Estimates for
2015–16 First Look (NCES 2018466). National
Center for Education Statistics (https://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2018/2018466.pdf).
19 U.S. Department of Education (Sept. 14, 2023).
Direct Loans Entering Default. National Student
Loan Data System (NSLDS) (https://studentaid.gov/
sites/default/files/DLEnteringDefaults.xls).
20 Federal Student Aid Office, U.S. Department of
Education (2016). National Student Loan Default
Rates from its 2016 Official FY2013 Cohort Default
Rate Briefing (https://fsapartners.ed.gov/sites/
default/files/attachments/eannouncements/
2016OfficialFY2013CDRBriefing.pdf). Federal
Student Aid Office, U.S. Department of Education
(2020). FY 2017 Official National Cohort Default
Rates with Prior Year Comparison and Total Dollars
as of the Date of Default and Repayment. In 2020
Cohort Default Rate National Briefing for FY2017
(https://fsapartners.ed.gov/sites/default/files/
attachments/2020-09/
093020CDRNationalBriefingFY17Attach_0.pdf).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
case against Ashford University, and the
Secretary has concluded substantial
misrepresentations brought to light in
that case continued until 2020.21 The
U.S. Department of Justice has also
continued to settle cases involving forprofit colleges.22 Other State attorneys
general or city officials have also
reached settlements with for-profit
institutions over allegations about the
same type of behavior identified by the
Department in the 2014 rule, though
these settlements did not come with an
admission of wrongdoing.23
According to the Department’s data
and analyses, which are presented in
the RIA of this final rule,24 GE programs
account for a disproportionate share of
students who complete programs with
very low earnings and unmanageable
debt. The expansion of IDR plans for
Federal student loans, which has risen
since the 2014 Prior Rule was released,
partially shields borrowers from these
risks. But such after-the-fact protections
do not address underlying program
failures to prepare students for gainful
employment in the first place, and they
shift the risks of nonpayment of loans
from students with poor labor market
outcomes and high debt to taxpayers.
21 California Department of Justice, Office of the
Attorney General (Mar. 7, 2022). Attorney General
Bonta: Ashford University Must Pay $22 Million in
Penalties for Defrauding California Students
(https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorneygeneral-bonta-ashford-university-must-pay-22million-penalties). U.S. Department of Education
(Aug. 30, 2023). Biden-Harris Administration
Approves $72 Million in Borrower Defense
Discharges for over 2,300 Borrowers Who Attended
Ashford University (https://www.ed.gov/news/
press-releases/biden-harris-administrationapproves-72-million-borrower-defense-dischargesover-2300-borrowers-who-attended-ashforduniversity).
22 U.S. Attorney’s Office, Middle District of
Louisiana (June 23, 2017). School Owner and CEO
Convicted of Federal Financial Aid Fraud Offenses
and Money Laundering. U.S. Department of Justice
(https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdla/pr/schoolowner-and-ceo-convicted-federal-financial-aidfraud-offenses-and-money). U.S. Attorney’s Office,
District of Connecticut (May 27, 2022). School and
Owner Pay Over $1 Million to Resolve Allegations
of Attempts to Improperly Influence the School’s
Student Loan Default Rate. U.S. Department of
Justice (https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/schooland-owner-pay-over-1-million-resolve-allegationsattempts-improperly-influence).
23 Office of Attorney General Maura Healey (Aug.
8, 2018). American Military University Pays
$270,000 for Alleged Failure to Disclose Job
Prospects, High-Pressure Enrollment Tactics.
Mass.gov (https://www.mass.gov/news/americanmilitary-university-pays-270000-for-alleged-failureto-disclose-job-prospects-high-pressure-enrollmenttactics). Department of Consumer and Worker
Protection (Oct. 3, 2022). Department of Consumer
and Worker Protection Settles With ASA College for
Deceptive Advertising Targeting Immigrants and
Other Vulnerable New Yorkers. NYC.gov (https://
www.nyc.gov/site/dca/media/pr100322-DCWPSettles-With-ASA-College-for-DeceptiveAdvertising.page).
24 See Tables 4.4, 4.5, 4.8, and 4.9 below.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
The reasons for the departure from the
2019 rescission are discussed in detail
in the NPRM of the rule, with detail on
particular points discussed further
below.
In light of the HEA differentiation
between career training (GE) programs
and other eligible programs, through
statutory language that defines title IVeligible career training programs as
those that prepare students for gainful
employment, the Department has
different responsibilities with respect to
GE programs and different tools
available in administering the title IV,
HEA programs. For these programs,
where labor market outcomes are central
to their mission, the Department
establishes a clear and administrable GE
program accountability framework
based on the EP and D/E measures,
which the Department will use to
evaluate what it means to prepare
students for gainful employment in a
recognized occupation and whether a
GE program is eligible to participate in
title IV, HEA.
While the financial value
transparency framework and the GE
program accountability framework are
both designed to improve student
financial outcomes, they differ in scope
and approach, derive from the
Department’s exercise of different
regulatory authorities. The two
frameworks are intended to function
independently, and their respective
components are intended to be
severable. Elsewhere we discuss the
complementary nature of the two
frameworks as well as their
severability,25 and we address the
Department’s authority to take action in
the next section. In subsequent sections
we explain our reasoning and the
evidence relevant to the positions that
we adopt, and we identify a number of
constructive public comments that,
upon reflection, have convinced the
Department to modify certain proposals
made in the NPRM. But our core
conclusions remain the same.
Considering the promise of
postsecondary education and training in
its many forms alongside the Federal
Government’s investment therein and
all applicable law, the Department
adopts this final rule.
Authority for This Regulatory Action
To address the need for regulatory
action, the Department amends
§§ 600.10, 600.21, 668.2, 668.13, 668.43,
and 668.91, and establishes subparts Q
and S of part 668.
25 See the NPRM, 88 FR 32300, 32341 (May 19,
2023), for a detailed discussion of how these
regulations are intended to be severable.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
The Department’s authority to
establish the financial value
transparency framework and the GE
program accountability framework is
derived primarily from: first, the
Secretary’s generally applicable
rulemaking authority, which includes
but is not limited to provisions
regarding data collection and
dissemination; second, authorizations
and directives within title IV of the HEA
regarding the collection and
dissemination of potentially useful
information about higher education
programs, as well as provisions
regarding institutional eligibility to
benefit from title IV; and third, the
further provisions within title IV, HEA
that address the eligibility of GE
programs.
As for general and crosscutting
rulemaking authority, section 410 of the
General Education Provisions Act
(GEPA) grants the Secretary authority to
make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and
amend rules and regulations governing
the manner of operation of, and
governing the applicable programs
administered by, the Department.26 This
authority includes the power to
promulgate regulations relating to
programs that we administer, such as
the title IV, HEA programs that provide
Federal loans, grants, and other aid to
students. Moreover, section 414 of the
Department of Education Organization
Act (DEOA) authorizes the Secretary to
prescribe those rules and regulations
that the Secretary determines necessary
or appropriate to administer and
manage the functions of the Secretary or
the Department.27
Section 431 of GEPA grants the
Secretary additional authority to require
institutions to make data available to the
public about the performance of their
programs and about students enrolled in
those programs. That section directs the
Secretary to collect data and
information on applicable programs for
the purpose of obtaining objective
measurements of the effectiveness of
such programs in achieving their
intended purposes, and also to inform
the public about federally supported
education programs.28 This provision
lends additional support to the
reporting requirements and the
Department’s program information
website, which will enable the
Department to collect data and
information for the purpose of
26 20
U.S.C. 1221e–3.
U.S.C. 3474.
28 20 U.S.C. 1231a(2)–(3). ‘‘Applicable program’’
means any program for which the Secretary or the
Department has administrative responsibility as
provided by law or by delegation of authority
pursuant to law. 20 U.S.C. 1221(c)(1).
27 20
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70007
developing objective measures of
program performance, not only for the
Department’s use in evaluating
programs but also to inform students,
their families, institutions, and others
about those federally supported
programs.
As for provisions within title IV, HEA,
several of them address the effective
delivery of information about
postsecondary education programs. For
example, section 131 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended
(HEA), provides that the Department’s
websites should include information
regarding higher education programs,
including college planning and student
financial aid,29 the cost of higher
education in general, and the cost of
attendance with respect to all
institutions of higher education
participating in title IV, HEA
programs.30 Those authorizations and
directives expand on more traditional
methods of delivering important
information to students, prospective
students, and others, including within
or alongside application forms or
promissory notes for which
acknowledgments by signatories are
typical and longstanding.31 Educational
institutions have been distributing
information to students at the direction
of the Department and in accord with
the applicable statutes for decades.32
The GE program accountability
framework also is supported by the
Department’s statutory responsibilities
to observe eligibility limits in the HEA.
Section 498 of the HEA requires
institutions to establish eligibility to
provide title IV, HEA funds to their
students. Eligible institutions must also
meet program eligibility requirements
for students in those programs to receive
title IV, HEA assistance.
One type of program for which certain
categories of institutions must establish
program-level eligibility is, in the words
of section 101 and section 102 of the
HEA, a ‘‘program of training to prepare
students for gainful employment in a
29 See,
for example, 20 U.S.C. 1015(e).
U.S.C. 1015(a)(3), (b), (c)(5), (e), (h). See also
section 111 of the Higher Education Opportunity
Act, 20 U.S.C. 1015a, which authorizes the College
Navigator website and successor websites.
31 See, for example, 20 U.S.C. 1082(m), regarding
common application forms and promissory notes or
master promissory notes. See also 34 CFR
685.304(a)(3), regarding Direct Loan counseling and
acknowledgments.
32 A compilation of the current and previous
editions of the Federal Student Aid Handbook,
which includes detailed discussion of consumer
information and school reporting and notification
requirements, is posted at https://
fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/fsa-handbook.
30 20
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70008
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
recognized occupation.’’ 33 Section 481
of the HEA articulates this same
requirement by defining, in part, an
‘‘eligible program’’ as a ‘‘program of
training to prepare students for gainful
employment in a recognized
profession.’’ 34 The HEA does not more
specifically define ‘‘program of training
to prepare,’’ ‘‘gainful employment,’’
‘‘recognized occupation,’’ or
‘‘recognized profession’’ for purposes of
determining the eligibility of GE
programs for participation in title IV,
HEA. The Secretary and the Department
have a legal duty to interpret,
implement, and apply those terms in
order to observe the statutory eligibility
limits in the HEA. In the section-bysection discussion in the NPRM, we
explained further the Department’s
interpretation of the GE statutory
provisions and how those provisions
should be implemented and applied.
The statutory eligibility criteria for GE
programs are one part of the foundation
of authority for warnings from
institutions to prospective and enrolled
GE students. In the GE context, the
Department has not only a statutory
basis for pursuing the effective
dissemination of information to
students about a range of GE program
attributes and performance metrics,35
but also the authority to use certain
metrics to determine that an
institution’s program is not eligible to
benefit, as a GE program, from title IV,
HEA assistance. When an institution’s
program is at risk of losing eligibility
based on a given metric, the Department
may then require the institution that
operates the at-risk program to alert
prospective and enrolled students that
they may not be able to receive title IV,
HEA assistance for enrollment in the
program in future years. Without a
direct communication from the
institution to prospective and enrolled
students, the students may lack
information critical to their program
enrollment decisions contrary to the
text, purpose, and traditional
understandings of the relevant statutes
as described above.
The above authorities collectively
empower the Secretary to promulgate
regulations to (1) require institutions to
report information about their programs
33 20 U.S.C. 1001(b)(1); 20 U.S.C. 1002(b)(1)(A)(i),
(c)(1)(A).
34 20 U.S.C. 1088(b)(1)(A)(i).
35 See Ass’n of Priv. Sector Colleges & Universities
v. Duncan, 110 F. Supp. 3d 176, 198–200 (D.D.C.
2015) (recognizing statutory authority to require
institutions to disclose certain information about
GE programs to prospective and enrolled GE
students), aff’d, 640 F. App’x 5, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2016)
(per curiam) (unpublished) (indicating that the
plaintiff’s challenge to the GE disclosure provisions
was abandoned on appeal).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
to the Secretary; (2) require prospective
students, with respect to certificate
programs and graduate degree programs
that do not meet certain financial value
measures established by the
Department, to acknowledge having
viewed the information on the
Department’s program information
website before entering into an
enrollment agreement; (3) establish
measures to determine the eligibility of
GE programs for participation in title IV,
HEA; and (4) require institutions to
provide warnings to students and
prospective students with respect to GE
programs that may lose their title IV,
HEA eligibility in the next year, and
require the students to acknowledge
having viewed the warning through the
Department’s program information
website. We provide additional detail
on these provisions in the discussions
below.
Summary of the Major Provisions of
This Regulatory Action
As discussed under ‘‘Purpose of This
Regulatory Action,’’ these regulations
establish a financial value transparency
framework and a GE program
accountability framework.
Through this regulatory action, the
Department establishes the following:
(1) In subpart Q, a financial value
transparency framework that will
increase the quality and availability of
information provided directly to
students about the costs, sources of
financial aid, and outcomes of students
enrolled in all title IV, HEA eligible
programs. As part of this framework, we
establish a measure of the earnings
premium that typical program graduates
experience relative to the earnings of
typical high school graduates. As part of
this framework, we also establish a
mechanism for measuring the debt
service burden for typical graduates.
Further, we establish performance
benchmarks for each measure, denoting
a threshold level of performance below
which students’ enrollment in the
program may have adverse financial
consequences. This information will be
made available via a program
information website maintained by the
Department, and, for certificate
programs and graduate degree programs
with poor outcomes under the debtburden measures, prospective students
will be required to acknowledge
viewing this information before entering
into enrollment agreements with an
institution. Further, through the
Department’s program information
website, we will provide the public,
taxpayers, and the Government with
relevant information which they can use
to better safeguard the Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
investment in these programs. Finally,
the financial value transparency
framework will provide institutions
with meaningful information that they
can use to compare the performance of
the programs to that of other institutions
and improve student outcomes in these
programs. For a detailed discussion of
the financial transparency framework,
see the ‘‘Financial Value Transparency
Framework’’ section of the NPRM.36
(2) In subpart S, we create an
accountability framework for career
training programs (also referred to as
gainful employment programs or GE
programs) that uses the same earnings
premium and debt-burden measures as
subpart Q to determine whether a GE
program remains eligible for
participation in title IV, HEA. The GE
eligibility criteria are used to identify
those programs that prepare students for
gainful employment in a recognized
occupation, as that language is used in
the HEA, and they tie program
eligibility to whether GE programs
provide education and training to their
title IV, HEA students that lead to
earnings beyond those of high school
graduates and sufficient to allow
students to repay their student loans. GE
programs that fail the same measure in
any two out of three consecutive years
for which the measure is calculated will
lose eligibility for participation in title
IV, HEA programs. Relatedly, for GE
programs that may lose their title IV,
HEA eligibility in the next year,
institutions must provide warnings to
those programs’ enrolled and
prospective students, and those students
must acknowledge having viewed the
warning through the Department’s
program information website before
certain specified events occur, including
the signing of an enrollment agreement
or the disbursement of title IV funds.
For a detailed discussion of the GE
program accountability framework, see
the ‘‘Gainful Employment Criteria’’
section of the NPRM.37
Specifically, the final regulations
adopt the following changes.
• Amend § 600.10 to require an
institution seeking to establish the
eligibility of a GE program to add the
program to its application.
• Amend § 600.21 to require an
institution to notify the Secretary within
10 days of any update to information
included in the GE program’s
certification.
• Amend § 668.2 to define certain
terminology used in subparts Q and S,
including ‘‘annual debt-to-earnings
rate,’’ ‘‘classification of instructional
36 88
37 88
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
FR 32300, 32325 (May 19, 2023).
FR 32300, 32343 (May 19, 2023).
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
programs (CIP) code,’’ ‘‘cohort period,’’
‘‘credential level,’’ ‘‘debt-to-earnings
rates (D/E rates),’’ ‘‘discretionary debtto-earnings rates,’’ ‘‘earnings premium,’’
‘‘earnings threshold,’’ ‘‘eligible non-GE
program,’’ ‘‘Federal agency with
earnings data,’’ ‘‘gainful employment
program (GE program),’’ ‘‘institutional
grants and scholarships,’’ ‘‘length of the
program,’’ ‘‘poverty guideline,’’
‘‘prospective student,’’ ‘‘student,’’ and
‘‘substantially similar program.’’
• Amend § 668.43 to establish a
Department website with program-level
financial information, and to require
institutions to inform a prospective
student how to access that website
before the student enrolls, registers, or
makes a financial commitment to the
institution.
• Amend § 668.91 to provide that a
hearing official must terminate the
eligibility of a GE program that fails to
meet the GE program accountability
metrics established in this rule, unless
the hearing official concludes that the
Secretary erred in the calculation.
• Add § 668.401 to identify the scope
and purpose of the newly established
financial value transparency regulations
in subpart Q.
• Add § 668.402 to provide a
framework for the Secretary to
determine whether a program leads to
high debt burden or low earnings,
including establishing annual and
discretionary D/E rate metrics and
associated outcomes, and establishing
an earnings premium metric and
associated outcomes.
• Add § 668.403 to establish a
methodology to calculate annual and
discretionary D/E rates, including
parameters to determine annual loan
payment, annual earnings, loan debt,
and assessed charges, as well as to
provide exclusions, and specify when
D/E rates will not be calculated.
• Add a new § 668.404 to establish a
methodology to calculate a program’s
earnings premium measure, including
parameters to determine median annual
earnings, as well as to provide
exclusions, and specify when the
earnings threshold measure will not be
calculated.
• Add § 668.405 to establish a process
by which the Secretary will obtain
administrative and earnings data to
issue D/E rates and the earnings
premium measure.
• Add § 668.406 to require the
Secretary to notify institutions of their
financial value transparency metrics
and outcomes.
• Add § 668.407 to require current
and prospective students to
acknowledge having seen the
information on the website maintained
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
by the Secretary if a program has failed
the D/E rates measure, to specify the
content and delivery parameters of such
acknowledgments, and to require that
students must provide the
acknowledgment before entering an
enrollment agreement with an
institution.
• Add § 668.408 to establish
institutional reporting requirements for
students who enroll in, complete, or
withdraw from a program and to define
the timeframe for institutions to report
this information.
• Add § 668.409 to establish
severability protections ensuring that if
any provision in subpart Q is held
invalid, the remaining provisions of that
subpart and other subparts would
continue to apply.
• Add § 668.601 to identify the scope
and purpose of newly established GE
regulations under subpart S.
• Add § 668.602 to establish criteria
for the Secretary to determine whether
a GE program prepares students for
gainful employment in a recognized
occupation.
• Add § 668.603 to define the
conditions under which a failing GE
program would lose title IV, HEA
eligibility, to provide the opportunity
for an institution to appeal a loss of
eligibility solely on the basis of a
miscalculated D/E rate or earnings
premium, and to establish a period of
ineligibility for failing GE programs that
lose eligibility or voluntarily
discontinue eligibility.
• Add § 668.604 to require
institutions to provide the Department
with transitional certifications, as well
as to certify, when seeking
recertification or the approval of a new
or modified GE program, that each
eligible GE program offered by the
institution is included in the
institution’s recognized accreditation or,
if the institution is a public
postsecondary vocational institution,
that the program is approved by a
recognized State agency.
• Add § 668.605 to require warnings
to current and prospective students if a
GE program is at risk of a loss of title
IV, HEA eligibility, to specify the
content and delivery requirements for
such warnings, and to provide that
students must acknowledge having seen
the warning before the institution may
disburse any title IV, HEA funds.
• Add § 668.606 to establish
severability protections ensuring that if
any GE provision under subpart S is
held invalid, the remaining provisions
of that subpart and of other subparts
would continue to apply.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70009
Summary of the Costs and Benefits
The Department estimates that the
final regulations will generate benefits
to students, postsecondary institutions,
and the Federal Government that exceed
the costs. The Department also estimates
substantial transfers, primarily in the
form of title IV, HEA aid shifting
between students, postsecondary
institutions, and the Federal
Government, generating a net budget
savings for the Federal Government. Net
benefits are created primarily by shifting
students from low-financial-value to
high-financial-value programs or, in
some cases, away from low-financialvalue postsecondary programs to nonenrollment. These shifts would be due
to improved and standardized market
information about all postsecondary
programs that would facilitate better
decision making by current and
prospective students and their families;
the public, taxpayers, and the
Government; and institutions.
Furthermore, the GE program
accountability framework will improve
the quality of student options by
directly eliminating the ability of lowfinancial-value GE programs to receive
title IV, HEA funds. This enrollment
shift and improvement in program
quality will result in higher earnings for
students, which will generate additional
tax revenue for Federal, State, and local
governments. Students will also benefit
from lower accumulated debt and lower
risk of default.
The primary costs of the final
regulations related to the financial value
transparency and GE accountability
requirements are the additional
reporting required by institutions and
the time for students to acknowledge
having seen the program information
website. The final regulations may also
result in some students at failing
programs deciding to end their
educational pursuits, even if they would
benefit from re-enrollment. See
‘‘Discussion of Costs, Benefits, and
Transfers’’ in the RIA in this document
for a more complete discussion of the
costs and benefits of the regulations.
The NPRM and Public Comment
The NPRM included proposed
regulations on five topics—Financial
Value Transparency and Gainful
Employment, Financial Responsibility,
Administrative Capability, Certification
Procedures, and Ability to Benefit.
These final regulations contain only
provisions on Financial Value
Transparency and GE. We will publish
another final rule with the remaining
four topics at a later date. The later rule
will include summaries and responses
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70010
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
to comments that made some references
to the GE program accountability
framework but are primarily concerned
with the financial responsibility,
administrative capability, or
certification procedures sections.
In response to our invitation in the
NPRM, 7,583 parties submitted
comments on the proposed regulations.
While the majority of respondents
commented on the provisions we
address in this final rule, the number
includes all who commented on any of
the five topics addressed in the NPRM.
In the NPRM, we discussed the
background of the regulations,38 the
relevant data available,39 and the key
regulatory changes that the Department
was proposing,40 including the changes
from the 2019 Prior Rule currently in
effect, and the differences between the
NPRM’s proposal and the nowrescinded 2014 Prior Rule. Terms used
but not defined in this document have
the meanings set forth in the NPRM.
The final regulations contain a number
of changes from the NPRM. We fully
explain the changes in the Analysis of
Comments and Changes section of the
preamble that follows.
We discuss substantive issues under
the sections of the proposed regulations
to which they pertain. Generally, we do
not address technical or other minor
changes or recommendations that are
out of the scope of this regulatory action
or that would require statutory changes.
Analysis of Public Comments and
Changes: Analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the regulations since
publication of the NPRM follows.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
General
Rulemaking Process
Comments: Several commenters asked
the Department to extend the public
comment period an additional 30 days.
These commenters contended that,
given the length of the NPRM, they
needed more time to review it if they
were to provide informed comment. The
commenters also observed that
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 cite
60 days as the recommended length for
public comment.
Discussion: The Department believes
the public comment period was
sufficient for commenters to review and
provide meaningful feedback on the
NPRM. We note that the public
comment period for the 2019 Prior Rule
also was 30 days.41 In response to the
NPRM we received comments from
more than 7,500 individuals and
38 88
FR 32300, 32306 (May 19, 2023).
FR 32300, 32392 (May 19, 2023).
40 88 FR 32300, 32317 (May 19, 2023).
41 See 83 FR 40167, 40168 (Aug. 14, 2018).
39 88
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
entities, including many detailed and
lengthy comments. Those comments
have helped the Department identify
many areas for improvements and
clarification that result in an improved
final rule. Moreover, the negotiated
rulemaking process, including multiple
negotiating sessions, provided a
significant additional opportunity for
public engagement and feedback that
exceeds what is typically available in
notice-and-comment rulemaking outside
the HEA’s statutory framework. The
Department began the rulemaking
process by inviting public input through
a series of public hearings in June 2021.
We received more than 5,300 public
comments as part of the public hearing
process. After the hearings, the
Department sought non-Federal
negotiators for the negotiated
rulemaking committee who represented
constituencies that would be affected by
our rules. As part of these non-Federal
negotiators’ work on the rulemaking
committee, the Department asked that
they reach out to the broader
constituencies for feedback during the
negotiation process. During each of the
three negotiated rulemaking sessions,
we provided opportunities for the
public to comment, including in
response to draft regulatory text, which
was available prior to the second and
third sessions. The Department and the
non-Federal negotiators considered
those comments to inform further
discussion at the negotiating sessions,
and we used the information when
preparing our proposed rule. The
Executive orders recommend an
appropriate period for public comment,
but they do not require more than 30
days, nor do their recommendations
account for the HEA’s negotiated
rulemaking requirements, which the
Department followed here as described.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
asserted that only two days of the
negotiated rulemaking process were
specifically devoted to a discussion of
the proposed GE regulations, which
they contended was not adequate time.
Discussion: The Department
disagrees. There were multiple
opportunities throughout the
rulemaking process for people to submit
comments on the proposed GE
regulations. We held public hearings to
obtain initial public input. We also
included daily public comment periods
during three weeks of negotiation
sessions and devoted two days to
discuss the topic exclusively. NonFederal negotiators solicited feedback
from their constituents on our proposals
during and between negotiation
sessions. Finally, we provided the
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
public with a 30-day period to comment
on the NPRM.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
believed that the Department is rushing
the implementation of the GE
regulations. These commenters argued
that programs need more time to comply
with these new rules.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with the commenters who believe that
there is not adequate time to comply
with the new GE regulations. The
Department gave notice of its intent to
regulate in the Spring 2021 Unified
Agenda. We conducted hearings to
obtain public input and held negotiated
rulemaking sessions in the Spring of
2022 where the Department’s
distributed plans for the rule and
provided detailed data on the projected
outcomes of GE programs. Accordingly,
we believe there has been, and will
continue to be prior to the effective date,
ample time for institutions to take the
necessary steps to be able to meet their
reporting obligations under the final
rule. In addition, we note that the
lengthy period beginning with the
Spring 2021 Unified Agenda, taken
together with the transition period built
into the GE program accountability
framework, will further allow
institutions to take steps to improve
their programs’ outcomes after the
regulation takes effect. Adding more
time would further delay the effective
date of the GE regulations and would
unnecessarily increase the likelihood
that students would continue to invest
their time and money in postsecondary
programs that do not meet the minimum
standards of these regulations. The
Department believes that we must
implement these rules as quickly as
possible to protect students and
taxpayers, and that there is enough time
for programs to comply.
Changes: None.
Statutory Authority; Other General
Legal Support
Comments: Some commenters
acknowledged that the Department has
authority to implement the financial
value transparency framework.
Discussion: We agree with these
commenters that the Department has
well established authority to implement
the financial value transparency
framework. As discussed in more detail
under ‘‘Authority for this Regulatory
Action’’ in this document, this
framework is supported in principal
part by the Secretary’s generally
applicable rulemaking authority, which
includes provisions regarding data
collection and dissemination, and
which applies in part to title IV of the
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
HEA, as well as authorizations and
directives within title IV of the HEA
regarding the collection and
dissemination of potentially useful
information about higher education
programs.
Comments: Several commenters
asserted that the proposed GE program
accountability framework exceeds the
Department’s statutory authority. Some
commenters argued that the description
of GE programs in the HEA—that those
programs must prepare students for
gainful employment in recognized
occupations—does not provide clear
congressional intent to support the
eligibility requirements in the proposed
regulations. Some of these commenters
contended that the HEA does not
require the Department to establish a
mathematical framework to determine
when a program adequately prepares
students for gainful employment in a
recognized occupation, nor provide any
explicit congressional authorization to
do so. Similarly, some commenters
asserted that the GE provisions in the
HEA are too vague and ambiguous to
support an eligibility framework based
on student outcomes. Some commenters
said the litigation addressing prior GE
rules never identified clear
congressional authorization for the
Department to establish an eligibility
framework for GE programs.
Commenters also asserted that the
variations in the prior and proposed GE
regulations constitute further proof that
there is no clear congressional
authorization tied to the proposed GE
regulations. In addition, some
commenters viewed the proposed GE
program eligibility framework in its use
of two outcome measures as a
significant expansion of the prior GE
regulations and argued that such a
framework could only be supported
with clear authorization from Congress.
Discussion: As discussed in detail in
the NPRM 42 and summarized in this
document under ‘‘Authority for this
Regulatory Action,’’ the GE program
accountability framework is supported
by the Department’s statutory
responsibilities to enforce eligibility
limits in title IV of the HEA as well as
the Department’s generally applicable
rulemaking authority.
As for the latter, Federal statutes grant
the Secretary general crosscutting
rulemaking authority that includes and
extends beyond title IV of the HEA.
Section 410 of the General Education
Provisions Act (GEPA) provides the
Secretary with authority to make,
promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend
rules and regulations governing the
42 88
FR 32300, 32321–22 (May 19, 2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
manner of operations of, and governing
the applicable programs administered
by, the Department.43 This authority
includes the power to promulgate
regulations relating to programs that we
administer, such as the title IV, HEA
programs that provide Federal loans,
grants, and other aid to students.
Furthermore, section 414 of the DEOA
authorizes the Secretary to prescribe
such rules and regulations as the
Secretary determines necessary or
appropriate to administer and manage
the functions of the Secretary or the
Department.44 These provisions,
together with the provisions in the HEA
regarding GE programs, authorize the
Department to promulgate regulations
that establish measures to determine the
eligibility of GE programs for title IV,
HEA program funds; require institutions
to report information about GE programs
to the Secretary; require institutions to
provide information about GE programs
to students, prospective students, and
others; and establish certification
requirements regarding an institution’s
GE programs.
As for title IV of the HEA and its
eligibility requirements, institutions
must meet institution-level as well as
program-level eligibility requirements
for students in those programs to receive
title IV assistance in the form of loans
or grants. HEA sections 101 and 102
state that one type of program for which
certain categories of institutions must
establish program-level eligibility is a
‘‘program of training to prepare students
for gainful employment in a recognized
occupation.’’ 45 HEA section 481
articulates this same requirement by
defining, in part, an ‘‘eligible program’’
as a ‘‘program of training to prepare
students for gainful employment in a
recognized profession.’’ 46
The Department has increased its
focus on these eligibility requirements
over time as key circumstances have
changed. College tuition levels have
continued to rise relative to inflation,
and student borrowing levels have
reached very high levels. The earnings
of college graduates have not risen
apace, however, and earnings outcomes
are not tightly correlated with
borrowing levels. Moreover, cases of
institutions using deceptive recruiting
and advertising practices to lure
students into postsecondary programs
with little return on investment remain
too common. All of these factors
combine to strand many graduates with
43 20
U.S.C. 1221e–3.
U.S.C. 3474.
45 20 U.S.C. 1001(b)(1); 20 U.S.C. 1002(b)(1)(A)(i),
(c)(1)(A).
46 20 U.S.C. 1088(b).
44 20
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70011
unaffordable education debt and little
enhancement to their earnings—too
often leaving them worse off financially
than if they had not pursued
postsecondary education at all. While
the financial returns to college remain
high overall for the average student, in
recent years these trends have
contributed to increased skepticism
about the value of going to college 47—
threatening one of the key pathways to
upward mobility in the United States.
We recognize that these forces are an
issue across sectors. However, by
defining GE programs as programs that
prepare students for gainful
employment, Congress indicated that
the value of adding such programs to
the Federal student loan program and to
title IV of the HEA more broadly lies in
their financial outcomes. Yet, despite
that statutory focus, GE programs
account for a disproportionate share of
students who complete programs with
very low earnings and unmanageable
debt. An essentially transparency-only
approach to GE programs, which is
reflected in the 2019 Prior Rule, has not
substantially improved the most
troubling trends. To address both the
Department’s obligation to oversee that
the statutory eligibility requirements are
met and to address the specific need for
regulatory action within the sector, the
GE program accountability framework
specifies what it means to prepare
students for gainful employment in a
recognized occupation. The framework
does so by establishing clear and
administrable measures that are tied to
student financial outcomes and that the
Department will use to evaluate whether
a GE program is eligible for title IV, HEA
program funds. One measure focuses on
manageable debt (the D/E rates
measure), the other on enhanced
earnings (the EP measure).48 We believe
the D/E and EP measures, singly and
taken together, will help promote the
47 Several surveys have documented declines in
the share of individuals who believe college is
worth the cost. For example, see Education
Expectations: Views on the Value of College and
Likelihood to Enroll (June 15, 2022). Strada (https://
stradaeducation.org/report/pv-release-june-152022/). Klebs, Shelbe, Fishman, Rachel, Nguyen,
Sophie & Hiler, Tamara (2021). One Year Later:
COVID–19s Impact on Current and Future College
Students. Third Way (https://www.thirdway.org/
memo/one-year-later-covid-19s-impact-on-currentand-future-college-students). See also Board of
Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys. (May 2022).
Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2021
(https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/
2021-report-economic-well-being-us-households202205.pdf).
48 For a detailed discussion of how the D/E rates
measure and the EP measure assess whether a
program is preparing students for gainful
employment in a recognized occupation, see the
Gainful Employment Criteria section in the NPRM,
88 FR 32300, 32343 (May 19, 2023).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70012
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
goal of career programs actually
providing financial value to their
graduates—consistent with the statutory
definition of GE programs and in service
of the specific need for regulatory
action.
The GE accountability rules effectuate
core statutory provisions in practical
and administrable ways. The definitions
of ‘‘gainful employment’’ programs are
central to the statutory scheme
regarding GE programs, and those
provisions establish limits on the
programs that may receive taxpayer
support through title IV, HEA loans and
grants to students in those programs.
The measures adopted in the GE
program eligibility framework are
designed to ensure eligible programs
leave students with affordable debt and
enhanced earnings, consistent with the
ordinary meaning of the operative
words in the statute. It is not only
reasonable but also in accord with all
indications of Congress’s intent to
conclude that a program does not
prepare students for gainful
employment in a recognized occupation
if typical program graduates are left
with unaffordable debt, or if they earn
no more than comparable high school
graduates.49 Students in such programs
receive no financial gain, and may even
experience financial loss, as a result of
attending their career training programs.
Those results indicate failure, not
success, as a title IV, HEA eligible GE
program. To be sure, as shown Tables
4.8 and 4.9 in the RIA, the Department
estimates that most of the existing GE
programs serving the majority of GE
students will not fail these metrics, let
alone be ineligible for title IV, HEA
participation by failing in two of three
consecutive years for which results are
issued. In any event, the programs that
may lose title IV, HEA eligibility under
these rules are the programs that
perform especially poorly for students
and, consequentially, taxpayers.
Moreover, in past litigation involving
affordable debt metrics, courts have
accepted that reasonable performance
measures may be used to evaluate the
eligibility of GE programs for title IV,
49 Some commenters criticized the Department’s
position in favor of performance measures for GE
programs as focusing overly much on the two
words, ‘‘gainful employment.’’ In our view, that
criticism understates the depth of analysis and
breadth of considerations that support the
Department’s position—including our attention to
the GE provisions as a whole as well as the
structure of the Higher Education Act more broadly.
This criticism also undervalues the enacted text,
however many or few words are relevant to the
issue of GE performance measures. We are
unpersuaded by arguments that appear to place
little value, and consequently no serious limits, on
the terms of the gainful employment provisions in
the statute.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
HEA participation. Those courts based
those decisions on the text, structure,
and purposes of the relevant statutory
provisions. Thus, in reviewing previous
GE rules, courts have examined the GE
provisions of the HEA and explained,
for example, that ‘‘train’’ and ‘‘prepare’’
are terms that ‘‘suggest elevation to
something more than just any paying
job. They suggest jobs that students
would less likely be able to obtain
without that training and
preparation.’’ 50 Courts have further
concluded that ‘‘it is reasonable to
consider students’ success in the job
market as an indication of whether
those students were, in fact, adequately
prepared,’’ 51 and that ‘‘examining [GE]
programs’ outputs in terms of earnings
and debts’’ is consistent with the HEA.52
Accordingly, the basic question of
whether the HEA authorizes
nonarbitrary GE performance measures
has been resolved repeatedly in the
Department’s favor. There are, of course,
issues of detail to settle in formulating
particular outcome measures that are
clear, workable, and suited to their
purposes. Indeed, questions of how
exactly to specify the GE performance
measures involve complex assessments
of how best to evaluate whether
programs prepare students for gainful
employment, which the Department is
statutorily authorized and wellpositioned to resolve given the
Department’s experience, knowledge,
and expertise. The Department
administers the relevant statutes, and it
has used the negotiated rulemaking
process to inform its views and gather
and consider a broad range of
perspectives before adopting these final
rules. Importantly, the Department now
has better data and data analysis than
ever previously available.53
50 Ass’n of Priv. Sector Colleges & Universities v.
Duncan, 640 F. App’x 5, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (per
curiam).
51 Ass’n of Proprietary Colleges v. Duncan, 107 F.
Supp. 3d 332, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Ass’n of Priv.
Colleges & Universities v. Duncan, 870 F. Supp. 2d
133, 147–48 (D.D.C. 2012)).
52 Ass’n of Priv. Sector Colleges & Universities v.
Duncan, 110 F. Supp. 3d 176, 187–88 (D.D.C. 2015)
(emphasis omitted), aff’d, 640 F. App’x 5 (D.C. Cir.
2016) (per curiam); id. at 187 n.4 (explaining by
way of analogy that there is ‘‘no irreconcilable
conflict’’ between a concentration on ‘‘inputs’’ such
as pre-match training and ‘‘outputs’’ in terms of
match performance).
53 See the RIA in this document for analyses of
how the D/E rates metric and the earnings premium
metric provide objective, data-driven assessments of
whether GE programs are preparing their students
for gainful employment in a recognized occupation
or whether they are instead leaving their students
with unmanageable debt or no better off than if they
had not pursued a postsecondary credential. See
also the discussion below of the earnings premium
metric and reasons for its adoption, in light of
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The foregoing points and discussion
elsewhere in this document and the
NPRM are sufficient to establish the
Department’s authority to adopt the GE
program eligibility framework. If
additional support were needed,
statutory history and legislative history
confirm that program performance,
including performance related to
enhanced earnings and affordable debt,
has been a focus of the relevant
statutory provisions from the beginning.
Such program performance was
addressed in legislative history of the
National Vocational Student Loan
Insurance Act (NVSLIA), Public Law
89–287 (1965)—which is the statute that
first permitted students to obtain
federally financed loans to enroll in
vocational programs. Both the ability of
students to repay loans and the benefits
to students from training were identified
as principal issues during the
development of that legislation.54
Indeed, the Senate Report that
accompanied the NVSLIA quoted
extensively from testimony on behalf of
the American Personnel and Guidance
Association, which supported the
legislation for the purpose of enabling
students to ensure their financial
security by ‘‘acquiring job skills which
will allow them to enter and compete
successfully in our increasingly
complex occupational society,’’ while
also emphasizing, based on an early
study, that ‘‘sufficient numbers’’ of
graduates of such programs ‘‘were
working for sufficient wages to make the
concept of student loans to be [repaid]
following graduation a reasonable
approach to take.’’ 55
The statutory framework has not
changed in relevant part, and the
taxpayer interest in safeguarding the use
of Federal funds persists today. Under
the loan insurance program enacted in
the NVSLIA, the specific potential loss
to taxpayers of concern was the need to
pay default claims to banks and other
lenders if the borrowers defaulted on
recent developments and new evidence, in this
final rule.
54 See generally Ass’n of Priv. Colleges &
Universities v. Duncan, 870 F. Supp. 2d 133, 138–
41 (D.D.C. 2012) (APCU) (reviewing statutory
history and legislative history).
55 S. Rep. No. 89–758 (1965), reprinted in 1965
U.S.C.C.A.N. 3742, 3748–49 (quoting testimony of
Professor Dr. Kenneth B. Hoyt); id. at 3749 (further
quoting Hoyt’s testimony as finding no reason to
believe that making government funds available
would be unjustified ‘‘in terms of benefits accruing
to both these students and to society in general, nor
that they would represent a poor financial risk’’);
id. at 3744 (explaining that the testimony
‘‘confirmed the committee’s estimate of the need for
such legislation’’); APCU, 870 F. Supp. 2d at 139
(stating that both House and Senate subcommittees
‘‘placed considerable weight on Dr. Hoyt’s
testimony’’).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
the loans. After its passage, the NVSLIA
was merged into the HEA which, in title
IV, part B, has both a direct Federal loan
insurance component and a Federal
reinsurance component that require the
Federal Government to reimburse State
and private nonprofit loan guaranty
agencies upon their payment of default
claims.56 Under either HEA component,
taxpayers and the Government assume
the direct financial risk of default.57
Since the Health Care and
Reconciliation Act of 2010,58 all Federal
loans have been originated as Direct
Loans from the Federal Government. As
the originator and owner of Federal
loans, the Federal Government (funded
by taxpayers) bears the cost of any
unpaid loans. Costs are generated by
borrowers defaulting on their loans, but
increasingly costs are also generated by
borrowers electing to repay their loans
on income driven repayment (IDR)
plans. Under these plans, borrowers can
pay a fixed share of the portion of their
income exceeding a threshold level (i.e.,
their discretionary income) for a preset
period of time, and then have the
remaining balance forgiven. When
borrowers’ debts are high relative to
their income, they are more likely to not
fully repay their loans. To avoid adverse
repayment risks both from default or
loan forgiveness via IDR plans,
taxpayers have an interest in financing
career training programs that leave
students better off in terms of earnings,
and with debt in reasonable proportion
to their earnings. Participation in IDR
plans has increased by approximately
50 percent since 2016 to about 9 million
borrowers and is likely to increase more
with the introduction of the new and
more generous Saving on a Valuable
Education (SAVE) IDR plan.
Accordingly, the Department has a
significant interest, on behalf of
taxpayers, in ensuring the funds
disbursed through title IV, HEA loans
are invested responsibly, further
supporting the use of performance
measures to assess a program’s
eligibility to participate in the title IV,
HEA programs as a GE program.
With regard to the earnings premium
measure, we offer further discussion
below. We note here that, to receive title
IV funds, section 484 of the HEA
generally requires that students already
have a high school diploma or
recognized equivalent. That requirement
makes high-school-level achievement
the presumptive starting point for title
56 20
U.S.C. 1071(a)(1).
U.S.C. 1078(c) (Federal reinsurance for
default claim payments); 20 U.S.C. 1080 (Federal
insurance for default claims).
58 Public Law 111–152.
57 20
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
IV, HEA funds. The EP measure adopts
that statutory starting point by
comparing the earnings of typical
program completers with those of
comparable high school graduates. As
with the debt-to-earnings measure, the
earnings premium measure is consistent
with the text, structure, and purposes of
the statute.
We disagree with the commenters
who contended that the differences
between the 2014 Prior Rule and the GE
program accountability framework in
these regulations suggest a lack of
statutory authority. In the NPRM, we
discussed the background of the
regulations,59 the relevant data
available,60 and the major changes
proposed in that document,61 including
the changes from the 2014 Prior Rule
and the 2019 Prior Rule. Although the
GE program accountability framework
in this final rule differs from the 2014
Prior Rule, including in the addition of
a standalone earnings premium
measure, we have demonstrated how
the D/E rates measure and the EP
measure, singly and taken together, are
reasonable, evidence-based metrics that
both serve to meet the statutory
eligibility requirements and address the
specific need for regulatory action in the
sector. The fact that this final rule varies
from prior GE regulations is not
indicative of lack of authority for the
Department to implement the statutory
provisions related to GE programs and
to develop rules to properly administer
the title IV, HEA programs. Rather, the
development of this rule reflects the
reality that the Department’s judgments
and policies on a variety of issues may
change over time in light of experience,
information, and analysis—which the
law permits, as long as the Department’s
rules remain within the boundaries of
the applicable statutes and the
Department provides a reasoned basis
for the change in position.62
The Department, therefore, disagrees
with commenters who believe that the
GE program accountability framework is
not within the Department’s statutory
authority, and further disagrees with
claims that GE program results are not
relevant to GE program eligibility for
title IV, HEA funding. The Department
also disagrees with suggestions that we
should implement the statute without
clear and administrable rules for
evaluating whether GE programs are
meeting statutory eligibility
requirements. Without relatively
59 88
FR 32300, 32306 (May 19, 2023).
FR 32300, 32392 (May 19, 2023).
61 88 FR 32300, 32317 (May 19, 2023).
62 See, for example, FCC v. Fox Television
Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515–16 (2009).
60 88
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70013
specific rules, the Department could not
adequately ensure that title IV, HEA
funds are properly channeled to
students attending programs that
prepare students for gainful
employment; institutions would not
have clarity as to the standards for GE
programs that the Department applies;
and we would not be able to address the
need for regulatory action in the
sector.63
We note, finally, that all or nearly all
of the commenters’ arguments against
any GE performance measure have been
raised and rejected during previous
rulemaking efforts and in litigation over
previous versions of the Department’s
GE program accountability rules. The
statutory arguments against considering
GE program outcomes of any kind are
not more persuasive now than they were
in past years. In fact, new data, data
analysis, and the Department’s
experience in attempting to enforce the
statutory limits on GE programs have
convinced us that these performance
measures are more, not less, urgently
needed.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
questioned the Department’s authority,
at least at this time, to adopt
performance measures for GE program
eligibility including the earnings
premium (EP) measure. Some
commenters noted that the EP measure
is a new standard and argued that the
measure was beyond the Department’s
authority to adopt for evaluating the
eligibility of GE programs to participate
in title IV, HEA. Some commenters
asserted that the Department had not
adequately supported the EP measure in
the NPRM, or that the Department’s
63 In suggesting that congressional intent
regarding GE programs indicates relatively narrow
authority for the Department, a commenter pointed
to post-enactment statements by Members of
Congress as well as unsuccessful legislation. The
Department is attentive to input from Members of
Congress, but we disagree that the statutory
authority for these rules is limited by unenacted
bills or policy positions. To the extent that the 2019
Prior Rule can somehow be read to adopt a contrary
position, that position cannot be sustained. See, for
example, Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct.
1731, 1747 (2020) (‘‘All we can know for certain is
that speculation about why a later Congress
declined to adopt new legislation offers a
‘particularly dangerous’ basis on which to rest an
interpretation of an existing law a different and
earlier Congress did adopt.’’) (quoting Pension Ben.
Guar. Corp. v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633, 650 (1990)).
In this rulemaking, we have emphasized, among
other sources, statutory text, structure, purpose, and
past judicial decisions, as well as the Department’s
well-reasoned choices on matters of detail in the
exercise of its authority to administer the relevant
statutes and in light of the Department’s experience
and expertise. Nothing in the 2019 Prior Rule, and
its more limited review of the foregoing
considerations, prevents the Department from
engaging in this analysis and reaching the
conclusions set forth herein.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70014
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
support for the EP measure is arbitrary.
While many commentators did not
focus on the EP measure in terms of the
Department’s statutory authority, some
commenters did make general
challenges to the GE program
accountability framework that applied
to the EP measure as well as the debtto-earnings (D/E) rates. Some of those
challenges were based on the
commenters’ interpretation of ‘‘gainful
employment’’ in the GE statutory
provisions to mean any job that pays
any amount, and on the contention that
the Department is arbitrarily changing
its position from the 2019 Prior Rule.
Discussion: In several respects, this
final rule differs from the 2019 Prior
Rule as well as the 2014 Prior Rule. We
have acknowledged those differences
and offered reasons for them in this
document and in the NPRM.64 One
difference is the addition of an earnings
premium measure, which will operate
alongside the debt-to-earnings rates
measure in evaluating GE program
eligibility. Further details and reasons
for adopting the EP measure are
presented below and in the NPRM.65 In
this discussion, we summarize several
connected reasons for adopting the EP
measure for GE program eligibility in
these final rules.
First of all, the Department’s careful
review of applicable law and public
comments leave us convinced that the
EP measure is within the Department’s
statutory authority. Statutory text,
structure, and purpose support that
conclusion. If program completers’
earnings fall below those of students
who never pursue postsecondary
education in the first place, programs
cannot fairly be said to ‘‘train’’
postsecondary students to ‘‘prepare’’
them for ‘‘gainful employment’’ in
recognized professions or
occupations.66 Those statutory terms
indicate that eligible GE programs must
make students ready or able to achieve
gainful employment in such professions
or occupations—consistent with a
statutory purpose of improving
students’ ultimate job prospects and
income over what they would be in the
absence of such training and
preparation. As the D.C. Circuit stated
when it reviewed the D/E measure in
the 2014 Prior Rule, those statutory
64 See 88 FR 32300, 32307–08 (May 19, 2023); id.
at 32309–11, 32342–43 (providing reasons for the
adoption of GE accountability rules at this time, in
view of the 2019 Prior Rule and subsequent
developments).
65 See, for example, 88 FR 32300, 32308, 32325–
28, 32343–44 (May 19, 2023). Those discussions
also address the D/E rates measure.
66 20 U.S.C. 1002(b)(1)(A), (c)(1)(A). See also 20
U.S.C. 1088(b)(1)(A)(i), which refers to a recognized
profession.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
terms ‘‘suggest elevation to something
more than just any paying job. They
suggest jobs that students would less
likely be able to obtain without that
training and preparation.’’ 67 At
minimum, the statutory language
permits the conclusion that the
Department adopts here.
Importantly, the overall structure of
the applicable statutes reinforces our
adoption of the EP measure. The basic
starting point for students at eligible GE
programs is a high school education or
its equivalent, as we pointed out in the
NPRM.68 The HEA generally requires
students who receive title IV assistance
to have already completed a high school
education,69 and then, from that starting
point, the statute requires GE programs
to prepare those high school graduates
for gainful employment in a recognized
occupation. Whatever ambiguity or
vagueness there might be in the HEA,
clearly GE programs are supposed to
enhance earnings power beyond that of
what high school graduates, not leave
them where they started. The EP
measure reflects that premise of the
applicable statutes. It will measure posthigh school gain, in part, with an
administrable test that reflects earnings
beyond a typical high school graduate.
The discussions in this document and
in the NPRM are more than sufficient to
67 Ass’n of Priv. Sector Colleges & Universities v.
Duncan, 640 F. App’x 5, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (per
curiam). Although the courts were likewise
reviewing D/E measures for GE program eligibility
rather than EP measures, generally supportive
language also appears in Ass’n of Priv. Sector
Colleges & Universities v. Duncan, 110 F. Supp. 3d
176, 187–88 (D.D.C. 2015) (stating that ‘‘examining
[GE] programs’ outputs in terms of earnings and
debts’’ is consistent with the HEA) (emphasis
omitted), aff’d, 640 F. App’x at 6; Ass’n of
Proprietary Colleges v. Duncan, 107 F. Supp. 3d
332, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (concluding that ‘‘it is
reasonable to consider students’ success in the job
market as an indication of whether those students
were, in fact, adequately prepared’’) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Ass’n of Priv.
Colleges & Universities v. Duncan, 870 F. Supp. 2d
133, 147–48 (D.D.C. 2012)).
68 See, for example, 88 FR 32300, 32308, 32333,
32327 (May 19, 2023).
69 Regarding a high school education as the
starting point, 20 U.S.C. 1001 states that an
institution of higher education must only admit as
regular students those individuals who have
completed their secondary education or met
specific requirements under 20 U.S.C. 1091(d),
which includes an assessment that they
demonstrate the ability to benefit from the
postsecondary program being offered. The
definitions for a proprietary institution of higher
education or a postsecondary vocational institution
in 20 U.S.C. 1002 maintain the same requirement
for admitting individuals who have completed
secondary education. Similarly, there are only
narrow exceptions for students beyond the age of
compulsory attendance who are dually or
concurrently enrolled in postsecondary and
secondary education. The apparent purpose of such
limitations is to help promote that postsecondary
programs build skills and knowledge that extend
beyond what is taught in high school.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
establish the Department’s authority to
adopt the GE eligibility rules, including
the EP measure.
The Department recognizes again, as
we did in the NPRM,70 that the EP
measure will be new to the
Department’s regulations. More broadly,
we recognize that until 2010 the
Department did not specify through
regulations an administrable test to
identify which programs qualify as
eligible GE programs under the statutes.
Nevertheless, we do not believe that the
meaning of the applicable statutes
becomes narrower because the agency
initially refrained from issuing
regulations that incorporated specific
performance tests. The need for such
rules became clearer over time. In
addition to the points made above, new
data and analyses have underscored the
need for performance-based limits on
GE program eligibility, including a test
for enhanced student earnings. Acting
now will enable the Department to
respond to that emerging need with
administrable tests of program
performance that accord with statutory
text, structure, and purpose.
An EP measure for GE eligibility finds
support in recent evidence and studies.
Within the last several years, a number
of researchers have recommended that
the Department reinstate the 2014 GE
rule with an added layer of
accountability through a high school
earnings metric.71 That goal of ensuring
that students benefit financially from
their career training fits with broader
research on the economics of
postsecondary education. Similar
earnings premium metrics are used
ubiquitously by economists and other
analysts to measure the earnings gains
associated with college credentials
relative to a high school education.72
70 See
88 FR 32300, 32307–11 (May 19, 2023).
for example, Matsudaira, Jordan D. &
Turner, Lesley J. (2020). Towards a Framework for
Accountability for Federal Financial Assistance
Programs in Postsecondary Education. The
Brookings Institution (www.brookings.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2020/11/20210603-MatsTurner.pdf). Cellini, Stephanie R. & Blanchard,
Kathryn J. (2022). Using a High School Earnings
Benchmark to Measure College Student Success
Implications for Accountability and Equity. The
Postsecondary Equity and Economics Research
Project. (www.peerresearchproject.org/peer/
research/body/2022.3.3PEER_HSEarningsUpdated.pdf). Itzkowitz, Michael (2020). Price to
Earnings Premium: A New Way of Measuring
Return on Investment in Higher Education. Third
Way (https://www.thirdway.org/report/price-toearnings-premium-a-new-way-of-measuring-returnon-investment-in-higher-ed). For further discussion
of such research, see the Regulatory Impact
Analysis below.
72 See, for example, Autor, D.H. (2014). Skills,
Education, and the Rise of Earnings Inequality
Among the ‘‘Other 99 Percent.’’ Science,344(6186),
843–851. Baum, S. (2014). Higher Education
Earnings Premium: Value, Variation, and Trends.
71 See,
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Furthermore, there is increasing public
recognition that some higher education
programs are not ‘‘worth it’’ and do not
promote economic mobility.73 While the
D/E rates measure identifies programs
where debt is high relative to earnings,
the EP measure assesses the economic
boost a program provides to its students
independent of the debt incurred. After
all, students and families invest their
own time and money in postsecondary
education in addition to the amount
they borrow. The EP measure therefore
provides a different measure than the D/
E metric of whether a program prepares
its students for gainful employment in
a recognized occupation. Adopting an
EP measure for GE programs that seek
to participate in title IV, HEA fits within
such recent recommendations, data
analysis, and mainstream thinking about
which career training programs should
be considered gainful.
Furthermore, the EP measure that we
adopt will set only minimal and
reasonable expectations for programs
that are supposed to help students move
beyond a high school baseline. The rule
marks an incremental and
commonsense change that we are
confident is within the Department’s
authority. In particular, we observe that
the median earnings of high school
graduates is about $25,000 nationally,
which corresponds to the earnings of a
full-time worker who makes about
$12.50 per hour.74 We also reiterate that
the EP measure does not demand that
every individual who attends a GE
program must earn more than a high
school graduate; instead, the measure
requires only that at least half of those
who actually complete the program are
earning at least slightly more than
individuals who had never completed
Urban Institute. Carnevale, A.P., Cheah, B. & Rose,
S.J. (2011). The College Pay Off. Daly, M.C. &
Bengali, L. (2014). Is It Still Worth Going to College.
FRBSF Economic Letter,13(2014), 1–5. Li, A.,
Wallace, M. & Hyde, A. (2019). Degrees of
Inequality: The Great Recession and the College
Earnings Premium in US Metropolitan Areas. Social
Science Research,84, 102342; Oreopoulos, P. &
Petronijevic, U. (2013). Making College Worth It: A
Review of Research on the Returns to Higher
Education. NBER Working Papers, (19053); and
Broady, Kristen E. & Herschbein, Brad (2020). Major
Decisions: What Graduates Earn Over Their
Lifetimes. The Hamilton Project.
73 See, for example, polling evidence in https://
www.wsj.com/articles/americans-are-losing-faithin-college-education-wsj-norc-poll-finds-3a836ce1.
A 2022 survey by the Federal Reserve shows that
more than one-third of workers under the age of 45
say the benefits of their education did not exceed
the costs (https://www.federalreserve.gov/
publications/files/2022-report-economic-well-beingus-households-202305.pdf).
74 That figure is lower than the minimum wage
in 15 States. See https://www.dol.gov/agencies/
whd/mw-consolidated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
postsecondary education.75 The vast
majority of students cite the opportunity
for a good job or higher earnings as a
key, if not the most important, reason
they chose to pursue a college degree.76
While the 2014 Prior Rule justifiably
emphasized that borrowers should be
able to earn enough to afford to repay
their debts, the Department recognizes
here that borrowers must be able to
afford more than ’’just’’ their loan
payments and that postsecondary GE
programs should help students reach a
minimal level of labor market earnings.
Although modest in several respects,
the EP measure for GE program
eligibility is nonetheless likely to
deliver important benefits and
substantially further statutory purposes.
We are convinced of these prospective
gains by recent evidence. For example,
recent research indicates that the EP
measure will help protect students from
the adverse borrowing outcomes
prevalent among programs with very
low earnings. Research conducted since
the 2014 Prior Rule as well as new data
analyses shown in this RIA illustrate
that, for borrowers with low earnings,
even small amounts of debt—including
levels of debt that would not trigger
failure of the D/E rates—can be
unmanageable. We now can be
reasonably confident that default rates
tend to be especially high among
borrowers with lower debt levels and
very low earnings, because at low
earnings levels any amount of debt in
unaffordable.77 Analyses in this RIA
show that the default rate among
students in programs that pass the D/E
rates thresholds but fail the earnings
premium are very high. In fact, those
default rates are even higher than
programs that fail the D/E rates measure
but pass the EP measure. In that sense,
the EP measure is an important separate
measure of gainfulness, providing some
added protection to borrowers who have
75 See 88 FR 32300, 32333, 32327 (May 19, 2023).
The EP measure simply compares program
completers’ earnings with high school graduates’
earnings and therefore does not reflect tuition costs
or debt. See id. at 32327. Note that these EP features
are not unique to the GE program eligibility
provisions. These EP features apply within the
financial value transparency provisions as well.
76 For example, a recent survey of 2,000 persons
aged 16 to 19 and 2,000 recent college graduates
aged 22 to 30 rated affordable tuition, higher
income potential, and lower student debt as the top
3 to 4 most important factors in choosing a college
(https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/27/opinion/
problem-college-rankings.html). The RIA includes
citations of other survey results with similar
findings.
77 See Brown, Meta et al. (2015). Looking at
Student Loan Defaults Through a Larger Window.
Liberty Street Economics, Fed. Reserve Bank of N.Y.
(https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/
2015/02/looking_at_student_loan_defaults_
through_a_larger_window/).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70015
relatively low balances, but who have
earnings so low that even low levels of
debt payments are unaffordable.
In addition, we reaffirm that the EP
measure will help protect taxpayers.78
Borrowers with low earnings are eligible
for reduced loan payments and loan
forgiveness, which increase the costs of
the title IV, HEA loan program to
taxpayers. While income-driven
repayment (IDR) plans for Federal
student loans partially shield borrowers
from default due to inability to make
payments, such after-the-fact
protections do not address underlying
program failures to prepare students for
gainful employment in the first place,
and they exacerbate the impact of such
failures on taxpayers as a whole when
borrowers are unable to pay. Not all
borrowers participate in these
repayment plans and, where they do,
the risks of nonpayment are shifted to
taxpayers when borrowers’ payments
are not sufficient to fully pay back their
loans. This is true because borrowers
with persistently low incomes who
enroll in IDR—and thereby make
payments based on a share of their
income that can be as low as $0—will
have their remaining balances forgiven
at taxpayer expense after a specified
number of years in repayment. Both the
EP and D/E measures for GE program
eligibility will help protect taxpayers,
because both measures are welldesigned to screen out GE programs that
generate a disproportionate share of the
costs to taxpayers and negative borrower
outcomes. In support of this conclusion,
the final RIA as well as the NPRM’s RIA
presented estimates of loan repayment
under the hypothetical assumption that
all borrowers pay on the SAVE plan
announced by the Department in July
2023.79 These analyses show that both
D/E and EP measures are strongly
correlated with an estimated subsidy
rate on Federal loans, which measures
the share of a disbursed loan that will
not be repaid, and thus provides a proxy
for the cost of loans to taxpayers.80
Although many commenters disagreed
with at least part of the Department’s
approach to GE programs, commenters
did not appear to take issue with the
proposition that taxpayer protection is a
purpose to be served by the GE
provisions in the HEA.
Thus, the EP and D/E measures serve
some of the same purposes, but we
observe again that they measure
importantly distinct dimensions of
78 See, for example, 88 FR 32300, 32307–09 (May
19, 2023).
79 See 88 FR 1894 (Jan. 11, 2023). The
Department’s final rule for IDR can be found at 88
FR 43820 (July 10, 2023).
80 See Table 2.10 in the RIA for this document.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70016
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
gainful employment.81 The distinctions
support the Department’s decision to
require that GE programs not
(repeatedly) fail either measure if those
programs are to receive title IV, HEA
support. D/E rates measure debtaffordability, indicating whether the
typical graduate will have earnings
enough to manage their debt service
payments without incurring undue
hardship. For any median earnings level
of a program, the D/E rates and
thresholds imply a maximum level of
total borrowing beyond which students
should be concerned that they may not
be able to successfully manage their
debt. The EP measure tests whether
programs leave their completers with
greater earnings capacity than those
who do not enroll in postsecondary
education, which represents a minimal
benchmark that students pursuing
postsecondary credentials likely expect
to achieve. And while the EP measure
provides additional protection to
borrowers and taxpayers, it attends to a
distinct aspect of determining whether a
program prepares its students for gainful
employment in a recognized
occupation—namely, the extent to
which the program helps students attain
a minimally acceptable earnings
enhancement.
Accordingly, we disagree with
commenters who argue that the
Department either generally lacks
authority to adopt the EP measure for
GE program eligibility, or that the
Department chose the wrong time to
adopt that measure. We understand the
opinions of those who prefer that the
Department not adopt administrable and
clear rules to test GE program
performance. Unlike the rules as they
stood after the 2019 rescission, these
final rules will demand that GE
programs not have a track record of
failure on certain basic measures of
performance if they seek to benefit from
title IV, HEA taxpayer funds. Some GE
programs will repeatedly fail those
measures, although we point out that
some of those programs will survive
without support from the Federal
Government through title IV, HEA.
Regardless, we are convinced that these
rules are within the Department’s
statutory authority, and that recent
events and new information confirm the
importance of acting now. If the
Department does not act effectively at
81 See, for example, 88 FR 32300, 32308, 32327,
32344 (May 19, 2023). We reiterate that the D/E and
EP measures are severable. The severability
provisions in these final rules are §§ 668.409 and
668.606. For the Department’s discussions of
severability generally and as applied to the D/E and
EP measures, please see the NPRM, 88 FR 32300,
32341–42, 32349 (May 19, 2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
the front end to screen out the subset of
GE programs that do not meet minimal
performance standards of enhanced
earnings and affordable debt, students
and taxpayers will continue to suffer the
consequences at the back end. Those
consequences have grown larger and
clearer, and the Department has decided
to respond decisively yet reasonably. A
clear earnings premium rule for GE
program eligibility is one part of that
measured response.
Comments: Several commenters
contended that there is an increased
burden on the Department to
demonstrate congressional authorization
for its proposed GE metrics under West
Virginia v. Environmental Protection
Agency 82 and the major questions
doctrine. These commenters described
the proposed eligibility framework as a
major shift in the way GE programs
maintain title IV, HEA eligibility that
would impact the funding for many
students and institutions, and asserted
that the framework creates burdensome
new reporting requirements. These
commenters concluded that the
statutory language relied upon—that GE
programs ‘‘prepare students for gainful
employment in a recognized
occupation’’—is not a sufficiently
explicit statement of congressional
intent to support such a change.
Discussion: We disagree that the
major questions doctrine applies such
that the Department needs an especially
clear grant of statutory authority to
adopt performance standards in the GE
program accountability framework.
Having considered the factors that
courts have used to identify exceptional
circumstances in which such clarity is
required, we do not believe that the
doctrine applies here.83 If the doctrine
did apply, we believe that the
Department’s authority to adopt
performance standards for GE program
eligibility is adequately clear based on
ordinary tools of statutory
interpretation.
As discussed above and in the
NPRM,84 we believe performance
measures for GE accountability rules are
firmly grounded in the text, structure,
and purposes of tile IV, HEA, including
its gainful employment provisions.
Furthermore, and for reasons also
discussed above, GE performance
measures are neither novel nor
surprising. We have noted past litigation
82 142
S. Ct. 2587 (2022).
for example, id. at 2608 (discussing
extraordinary cases in which the breadth, history,
and economic and political significance of asserted
agency authority provide reason to hesitate before
concluding that Congress conferred such authority).
84 88 FR 32300, 32306 (May 19, 2023).
83 See,
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and court opinions.85 And given the
grounding of performance measures in
the text of core statutory provisions in
the HEA regarding GE programs, there is
nothing ‘‘ancillary’’ about those
statutory provisions such that the major
questions doctrine might apply on that
basis.86
And far from taking any step toward
mandating specific curricula when
institutions prefer other educational
strategies,87 these performance
measures simply evaluate whether
programs should receive taxpayer
support based on commonsense
financial outcomes: affordable debt and
enhanced earnings. Those outcomes
plainly are related to whether a program
actually prepares students for gainful
employment in a recognized occupation
or profession, instead of leaving the
typical program completer with
unaffordable debt burdens or no greater
earnings than they could secure without
career training. These performance
measures are based on the text,
structure, and purposes of the governing
statutes. Such rules are, moreover,
within the heartland of the
Department’s experience and expertise.
Among the Department’s longstanding
missions are enforcing the limits on title
IV, HEA eligibility for GE programs, and
gathering, analyzing, and using data to
evaluate education programs including
GE programs. Accordingly, GE
performance measures are not beyond
the agency’s core competence such that
the major questions doctrine might
apply on that basis.88
85 See cases cited in notes 50–52 above, within
that earlier discussion of authority for the GE
program accountability framework.
86 Compare Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531
U.S. 457, 468 (2001) (‘‘Congress, we have held, does
not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory
scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions—it
does not, one might say, hide elephants in
mouseholes.’’); Ass’n of Priv. Colleges &
Universities v. Duncan, 870 F. Supp. 2d 133, 148
(D.D.C. 2012) (APCU) (reviewing the 2011 Prior GE
Rule, distinguishing Whitman, and explaining that
‘‘[n]either the elephant nor the mousehole is
present here. . . . Concerned about inadequate
programs and unscrupulous institutions, the
Department has gone looking for rats in ratholes—
as the statute empowers it to do.’’); Ass’n of
Proprietary Colleges v. Duncan, 107 F. Supp. 3d
332, 361 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (reviewing the 2014 Prior
GE Rule and quoting APCU).
87 Under section 103 of the Department of
Education Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. 3403(b), the
Department is generally prohibited from exercising
any direction, supervision, or control over the
curriculum, program of instruction, administration,
or personnel of an educational institution, school,
or school system.
88 Compare W. Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. at
2612–13 (indicating that presumably Congress does
not task an agency with making policy judgments
in which the agency has ‘‘no comparative
expertise’’); Biden v. Missouri, 142 S. Ct. 647, 653
(2022) (‘‘[T]here can be no doubt that addressing
infection problems in Medicare and Medicaid
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
In addition, available data indicate
that the GE program accountability
framework will have important yet
limited effects. The available data,
presented in RIA Tables 4.8 and 4.9,
indicate that most existing GE programs
will not fail the D/E rates or EP measure
when they are applied, let alone fail two
out of three years for which program
results are issued. Our estimates suggest
about 1,700 GE programs will fail the D/
E rates or EP measure—representing
about 5.3 percent of all GE programs,
and only 1.1 percent of all higher
education programs attended by
federally aided students. While the
share of students currently enrolled in
such programs is higher—23.7 percent
of federally aided students in career
training programs, and 3.6 percent of all
federally aided students—it is important
to note these students have other
options. Analyses presented in Tables
4.25 and 4.26 of the RIA show that the
majority of students have similar
program options that do not fail the D/
E rates or EP measure and are nearby,
or even at the same institution. These
analyses are supported by external
research, suggesting that most students
in institutions closed by accountability
provisions successfully reenroll in
higher performing colleges.89 More
generally, many more students will
pursue a postsecondary education in the
future, relative to the number enrolled
now. As programs with poor
performance close, these future college
goers will benefit from better options to
choose from and are unlikely to
otherwise be affected by programs
closed today. In any event, nearly threequarters of institutions of higher
education that participate in title IV,
HEA programs have no enrollment in
failing GE programs that might be
subject to eligibility loss.
Those predicted effects do not
establish the kind of transformation or
upheaval in higher education that might
trigger the major questions doctrine.90
Indeed none of the above considerations
indicates the special circumstances
under which courts have invoked the
facilities is what [the Secretary of Health and
Human Services] does.’’).
89 Cellini, S.R., Darlie, R. & Turner, L.J. (2020).
Where Do Students Go When For-Profit Colleges
Lose Federal Aid? American Economic Journal:
Economic Policy, 12(2): 46–83.
90 Compare W. Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. at 2610
(addressing what the Court characterized as agency
authority to ‘‘substantially restructure the American
energy market,’’ and an ‘‘unheralded power’’ that
would represent a ‘‘transformative expansion’’ of
agency authority) (internal quotation marks
omitted); Biden v. Nebraska, 143 S. Ct. 2355, 2373
(2023) (discussing what the Court described as a
‘‘fundamental revision of the statute’’ and a
decision with ‘‘staggering’’ economic and political
significance).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
major questions doctrine to demand
especially clear statutory authorization
for agency action.
Of course, the GE program
accountability framework is not
irrelevant as a matter of economics or
politics. Every student who ends up
with enhanced earnings or more
affordable debt is important, in the
Department’s view, as is every Federal
dollar saved from expenditure on poorly
performing GE programs. And we
acknowledge that there is disagreement
among those who are engaged in the
relevant policy debates about the
appropriate content for the GE rules. We
likewise acknowledge that the precise
content of the GE rules and their effects
are important to institutions, students,
and taxpayers. In fact, the HEA requires
that limits on GE programs be
recognized and enforced; the
Department is not free to ignore those
limits as if the applicable sections were
surplusage, and that point is not
insignificant to the statutory scheme.
But in this instance, the Department is
adopting relatively modest,
commonsense, minimum performance
standards that most GE programs
seeking government support can and
should pass without trouble, and that do
not preempt, through agency action, any
widespread political controversy that
Congress intended to reserve for itself.
Although the Department must make
judgments about the details of
performance measures to make the rules
clear and easily administrable, those
choices of detail are, by definition, not
subject to the major questions doctrine.
We also observe that the Department
has followed and benefitted from an
extensive process before issuing these
final rules on GE accountability. The
Department used the negotiated
rulemaking provisions in the HEA, with
notice and comment rulemaking, which
is the process that was created for the
Department to consider the interests of
title IV, HEA participants, among others.
In this context, reestablishing an
eligibility framework for GE programs
fits well with the financial value
transparency framework for all
programs while setting an outcomebased limit for GE programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
contended that a lack of congressional
authorization to use outcomes-based
measures for GE programs is shown by
other eligibility requirements in the
HEA, including cohort default rates, the
90/10 revenue requirement, and
limitations on correspondence courses.
A commenter also asserted that
Congress created cohort default rates
(CDRs) as a performance measure for
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70017
institutions rather than directing the
Department to set program-based
outcomes as eligibility requirements.
Some commenters argued that the
framework of detailed program
requirements under title IV of the HEA,
including institutional CDR,
institutional disclosure requirements,
restrictions on student loan borrowing,
and other financial aid requirements,
prevents the Department from adopting
debt measures to determine whether a
GE program is eligible to receive title IV,
HEA program funds.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
that GE performance measures are
somehow precluded by distinct and
complementary safeguards elsewhere in
law. There is no express support in the
statutes for that position, which would
diminish protections for students and
taxpayers. Instead, the commenters are
suggesting an inference of exclusivity
with inadequate support in the statutes.
Taking other safeguards as exclusive
would effectively ignore the statutorily
prescribed limits on GE programs as the
HEA defines them. The Department can
find no sound reason, in law or policy,
for treating the GE provisions as
surplusage. The Department’s
specification of details in clear and
administrable rules helps us to
implement and enforce these provisions
appropriately, and the specific rules for
these GE provisions are entirely
consistent with the specific
requirements in other statutory
provisions.
The Department accordingly disagrees
with the commenters’ assertions that the
HEA’s provisions on CDR, student
borrowing, and other financial aid
matters prevent the Department from
implementing the specific HEA
provision limiting title IV eligibility to
programs that provide training that
prepares students for gainful
employment in a recognized
occupation. The different Department
rules implement different statutory
provisions. For example, the CDR and
GE regulations serve related but
different purposes. Congress enacted the
CDR provision, which measures loan
defaults from all programs at the
institutional level, as one mechanism—
not the sole, exclusive mechanism—for
dealing with abuses in Federal student
aid programs.91 Congress did not, in
91 That conclusion regarding the non-exclusivity
of CDR is consistent with relevant legislative
history. See H.R. Rep. No. 110–500, at 261 (2007)
(‘‘Over the years, a number of provisions have been
enacted under the HEA to protect the integrity of
the federal student aid programs. One effective
mechanism was to restrict federal loan eligibility for
students at schools with very high cohort loan
default rates.’’) (emphasis added).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70018
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
enacting the CDR provision or at any
other time, limit the Department’s
authority to promulgate regulations to
effectuate and specify limits on GE
programs.92 Nor did Congress alter the
existing statutory language regarding GE
program eligibility when it passed the
CDR provision. Moreover, the CDR
provision operates at the institutional
level while the GE provisions and these
GE accountability rules operate at the
program level. In addition to statutory
eligibility requirements at the
institution level, each program must be
evaluated for title IV, HEA eligibility as
well.93
The GE program accountability rules
are also consistent with other provisions
of the HEA aimed at curbing abuses in
the title IV, HEA programs. For
example, Congress capped the amount
of title IV revenues that proprietary
institutions could receive at 85 percent
in the 1992 HEA reauthorization as a
condition of institutional eligibility,
with subsequent changes that increased
the percentage to 90 percent and that
tied a loss of eligibility to two years of
failing the 90 percent measure instead of
one year. More recently, Congress also
expanded the definition of Federal
education funds to include military
benefits to service members and families
as a part of the funds included in the 90
percent limit. The 90/10 provisions
were put in place to require proprietary
institutions to generate some revenue
from non-Federal sources. Those
changes fit within a larger framework
where Congress also specified that a
participating ‘‘institution will not
provide any commission, bonus, or
other incentive payment based directly
or indirectly on success in securing
enrollments or financial aid to any
persons or entities engaged in any
student recruiting or admission
activities or in making decisions
regarding the award of student financial
assistance.’’ 94 Additionally, to prevent
92 Contrast the prohibition on Department
regulations in 20 U.S.C. 1015b(i), regarding student
access to affordable course materials. See id. (‘‘The
Secretary shall not promulgate regulations with
respect to this section.’’).
93 See Ass’n of Priv. Colleges & Universities v.
Duncan, 870 F. Supp. 2d 133, 147 (D.D.C. 2012).
In that case, the court recognized that the ‘‘statutory
cohort default rule . . . does not prevent the
Department from adopting the debt measures’’ for
GE programs. Id. (citing Career Coll. Ass’n v. Riley,
74 F.3d 1265, 1272–75 (D.C. Cir. 1996), for the
proposition that the Department’s authority to
establish ‘‘‘reasonable standards of financial
responsibility and appropriate institutional
capability’ empowers it to promulgate a rule that
measures an institution’s administrative capability
by reference to its cohort default rate—even though
the administrative test differs significantly from the
statutory cohort default rate test.’’).
94 20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(20). As one court explained,
‘‘The concern is that recruiters paid by the head are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
schools from improperly inducing
people to enroll, Congress prohibited
participating institutions from engaging
in a ‘‘substantial misrepresentation of
the nature of its educational program, its
financial charges, or the employability
of its graduates.’’ 95 Congress also
required a minimum level of State
oversight of eligible schools. The GE
program accountability rules adopted
here are consistent and compatible with
such additional and separate
regulations, including those that apply
to institutions that seek eligibility for
title IV, HEA support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
asserted that the Department is
misinterpreting the GE program
statutory language and suggested that
the language is better read as referring
to the type and content of the program
an institution is offering rather than
measuring any outcomes of the program
graduates. Other commenters similarly
stated that ‘‘gainful employment’’ was
intended to refer to the nature of the
employment associated with the
training and not any type of outcomebased framework, noting that outcomebased standards provide no basis for
new programs to establish eligibility
under the HEA before there would be
any program outcomes to measure.
Another commenter referred to
administrative decisions from the
Department that also described GE
programs as types of programs leading
to recognized occupations. One
commenter claimed that the Department
has previously defined the phrase
‘‘gainful employment in a recognized
occupation’’ in the context of
conducting administrative hearings and
argued that the Department did not
adequately explain in the NPRM why it
was departing from its prior use of the
term.
Discussion: The GE program
accountability framework builds on the
Department’s regulation of institutions
participating in the title IV, HEA
programs to protect students and
taxpayers, as Congress authorized. For
reasons given in this document and the
NPRM,96 the Department is adopting GE
rules that consider program
performance in eligibility
determinations for GE programs. The
Department disagrees with the
commenters’ claims that the GE
tempted to sign up poorly qualified students who
will derive little benefit from the subsidy and may
be unable or unwilling to repay federally
guaranteed loans.’’ United States ex rel. Main v.
Oakland City Univ., 426 F.3d 914, 916 (7th Cir.
2005).
95 20 U.S.C. 1094(c)(3)(A).
96 88 FR 32300, 32344 (May 19, 2023).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
provisions address program content and
curriculum alone. Whatever the extent
of the Department’s authority to
consider GE program content—and the
Department is not asserting such
authority in these GE rules—the
Department may assess GE program
performance through student outcomes.
Furthermore, the rules adopted here
allow for new as well as existing GE
programs. Although parts of the GE
rules are performance-based, these rules
will not exclude programs from title IV,
HEA eligibility until they build a track
record to evaluate them. The
Department must have student
outcomes data to measure program
performance, which can only come after
a period of time. Moreover, the rules are
designed as reasonable, minimum
standards whereby title IV, HEA
eligibility as a GE program is not
precluded until a program fails one of
the two GE metrics in two out of three
consecutive years for which the
Department can issue results. Under
these rules, new programs that
otherwise qualify as GE programs do not
have to show performance results that
are not yet available.
We further disagree that a previous
administrative decision on GE program
eligibility forecloses the adoption of
these final rules. The Department would
not be prevented from changing its
position in this rulemaking, of course,
even if an older agency decision during
an administrative adjudication
conflicted with our decision here. We
provide numerous and extensive
reasons for the rules that we are
adopting. But in this instance, no such
conflict exists. The argument was vetted
and rejected more than 10 years ago.
Challenging the 2011 Prior Rule and
referring to a decision by an
administrative law judge (ALJ), the
Association of Private Colleges and
Universities contended that the
Department previously defined gainful
employment in a recognized occupation
in a manner that conflicted with those
outcome-based rules. The adjudication
involved the question whether a
program in Jewish culture prepared
students enrolled in the program for
gainful employment in a recognized
occupation. As the court understood,
the ALJ did not purport to
comprehensively decide what it means
to prepare a student for gainful
employment in a recognized
occupation; instead the ALJ merely
stated that any preparation must be for
a specific area of employment.97
97 Association of Private Sector Colleges and
Universities (APSCU) v. Duncan, 870 F. Supp. 2d
133, 150 (D.D.C. 2012). The adjudication involved
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Therefore, the Department did not
depart from the ALJ’s interpretation
when the Department adopted outcomebased measures for GE programs in the
2011 Prior Rule.98 Nor is the
Department departing from that
interpretation with these regulations.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters argued
that the Department does not provide
adequate reasons for changing
approaches from the 2019 Prior Rule,
which rescinded the 2014 Prior Rule.
Discussion: We discussed departures
from the 2019 rescission in the
‘‘Background’’ section of the NPRM.99
Specifically, the Department remains
concerned about the same problems
documented in the 2011 and 2014 Prior
Rules. Too many borrowers struggle to
repay their loans, and the RIA shows
these problems are more prevalent
among programs where graduates have
high debts relative to their income, and
where graduates have low earnings. The
Department recognizes that, given the
high cost of education and
correspondingly high need for student
debt, students, families, institutions,
and the public have an acute interest in
knowing whether higher education
investments payoff through positive
repayment and earnings outcomes for
graduates.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asserted
that the Department’s 2019 action to
rescind the 2014 GE regulation created
a serious reliance interest, which will
cause institutions to incur costs to
comply with the requirements in this
final rule. Another commenter noted
that there is little correlation between
the earnings data the Department relied
upon in the NPRM RIA and the earnings
data that has been posted on College
Scorecard. This commenter believed
that institutions have a reliance interest
in how the Department has previously
measured debt and earnings.
Discussion: The NPRM contained a
Reliance Interests section,100 where the
Department acknowledged and
considered reliance interests generally.
We reiterate and reaffirm here that the
Department’s prior regulatory actions
would not have encouraged reasonable
reliance on any particular regulatory
position.101 The 2019 Prior Rule was
issued to rescind the 2014 Prior Rule at
a point when no program had yet been
denied title IV, HEA eligibility as a GE
program due to failing GE outcome
measures over multiple years. Thus,
institutions that were operating
programs with title IV, HEA support at
the time of the 2019 rescission could not
have reasonably relied on continuing
eligibility based on their title IV support
between the 2014 and 2019 Prior Rules,
and in any case the absence of eligibility
denials limited the practical differences
across rule changes for institutions and
other interested parties. As we discuss
elsewhere in this document, including
the RIA, we do anticipate positive
effects from this final rule, but we also
observe that effects such as ineligibility
of GE programs for participation in title
IV, HEA will not occur immediately.
Institutions and others will have some
time to adjust. Furthermore, as various
circumstances have changed, in law and
otherwise, and as more information and
further analyses have emerged, the
Department’s position and rules have
changed since the 2011 Prior Rule. Such
alterations in rules do not establish a
firmly stable foundation on which
interested parties may develop
reasonable and legitimate reliance
interests in a particular set of rules that
they prefer. In any event, we find no
reasonable reliance interest in the 2019
rescission persisting such that the
Department could not revise its
approach and, for example, observe
meaningful performance-based limits on
the eligibility of gainful employment
programs for title IV, HEA participation.
The commenters did not offer useful
evidence or other bases on which the
Department could reasonably conclude
that asserted reliance interests, as to the
prior rules or the College Scorecard, are
real and significant rather than
theoretical and speculative. On balance,
the reliance interests asserted by the
commenters have not changed our
position that there are no plausible
reliance interests that are strong enough
to lead us to fundamentally alter these
final regulations.
Changes: None.
the question whether a program in Jewish culture
prepared students enrolled in the program for
gainful employment in a recognized occupation.
98 See id. In any event, the Department has
provided ample reasons for disagreeing with
narrower positions on the GE provisions and in
favor of its positions on outcome-based measures,
as reflected in these rules.
99 88 FR 32300, 32306–11 (May 19, 2023).
100 88 FR 32300, 32316 (May 19, 2023).
101 Our conclusions regarding reliance interests
are guided by judicial opinions including FCC v.
Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515–16
(2009).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70019
General Comments on the Financial
Value Transparency Framework (§§ ,
668.43, 668.401, 668.402, 668.403,
668.404, 668.405, 668.406, 668.407,
668.408, and 668.409)
General Support and Opposition
Comments: We received many
comments expressing support for the
financial value transparency framework
as a means of protecting students and
improving higher education outcomes.
Commenters urged prioritizing the
establishment of the program
information website so that students
have clear information about the
institutions and programs they are
attending or considering attending.
These commenters supported efforts
that would help students identify ‘‘highdebt-burden’’ and ‘‘low-earning’’
programs and urged the Department to
keep these strong transparency
provisions in the final rule to protect
students and taxpayers. Several
commenters argued that this
information would allow students to
make informed decisions about their
education.
Discussion: We thank the commenters
for their support. Under § 668.43(d)(1),
the Department will provide, through a
website hosted by the Department,
program-level information on the
typical earnings outcomes for graduates
and their borrowing amounts, cost of
attendance, and sources of financial aid
for all programs where it can be
calculated to help students make more
informed choices. We agree that this
information will help students make
more informed choices and allow
taxpayers and other stakeholders to
better monitor whether public and
private resources are being well used.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters
supported the proposed transparency
framework as a way to provide
prospective students with relevant
information about the programs and
professions they may wish to pursue.
Commenters noted that it was often
difficult for students to understand total
college costs in comparison to
employment rates and post-graduate
earnings and said that the information
provided in the transparency framework
could fill in some information gaps for
students. Some commenters believed
that this platform would, over time,
encourage students to select the
institutions and programs that are more
likely to meet their needs and standards.
Other commenters noted that interests
in certain job fields drive career paths,
so some students would not be
interested in information about different
programs that offered higher pay.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70020
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Discussion: We appreciate the
comments recognizing the benefits to
students and families that the increased
transparency framework will provide in
conjunction with information
institutions provide about programs and
services they offer.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asserted
that we need more empirical evidence
that publishing data will change student
outcomes. Other commenters suggested
that interests in certain job fields drive
career paths, so some students would
not be interested in information about
different programs that offered higher
pay.
Discussion: The Department
discussed the substantial evidence base
around the role of transparency and
student choice in postsecondary
education in the NPRM and in the
‘‘Outcome Differences Across Programs’’
section of RIA.102 Information does not
always sway student choice, but
research suggests that providing
students with comparable, timely
information from a trusted source can
influence their decisions.103 The
Department believes that the financial
value transparency framework serves as
an evidence-based approach to provide
relevant, trusted, and timely
information for student decisionmaking.
We understand that some students
may be committed to pursuing a
particular field and may not be swayed
by information about other fields. But as
the data in this RIA demonstrate, there
are vast differences in earnings and debt
outcomes for programs with the same
credential level and field, and we
anticipate that students already
committed to a particular degree will
benefit from being able to find programs
with the best outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters argued
that the certain terms used in the NPRM
to label programs that do not pass the
D/E rates or EP measures could mislead
students or misrepresent other positive
aspects of the program. Commenters
identified terms like ‘‘high debt burden’’
or ‘‘low earning’’ as overly pejorative.
Discussion: The D/E rates thresholds
are based on research into how much
debt service payments are affordable
based on an individual’s earnings.
Programs do not meet the D/E criteria
when a program’s discretionary D/E rate
is above 20 percent, and the annual D/
102 88
FR 32300, 32322 (May 19, 2023).
Mary, Kramer, Dennis A. II, McHugh,
Walter & Ducoff, Nick (2019). Information
Disclosure and College Choice. The Brookings
Institution (www.brookings.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2020/11/ES-11.23.20-Steffel-et-al-1.pdf).
103 Steffel,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
E rate is above 8 percent. As discussed
in the NPRM, the discretionary D/E rate
threshold is based on research
conducted by economists Sandy Baum
and Saul Schwartz,104 and the annual
D/E rate threshold is grounded in
mortgage-underwriting standards. While
the rules do not require the Department
to use particular labels to describe the
outcomes of programs under the D/E
rates measure, we intend to use clear
descriptive language to communicate
these outcomes to students. For
example, informing students that such
programs are ‘‘high debt burden’’
provides context for the amount of debt
that the student will take on relative to
their early career earnings.
Similarly, the EP threshold is based
on the median earnings of high school
graduates in the labor force in the
institution’s State. When the median
earnings for graduates from a
postsecondary program are lower than
this threshold, terming the program, for
example, ‘‘low earning’’ is appropriate.
The Department views these terms as
examples of clear and transparent
descriptors for potential students; we
believe that less direct phrasing would
make it harder for students to interpret
the information. However, while the
Department believes that students
should be informed about the
consequences of their choices in
programs, we will consider adding
language to the Department’s program
information website noting that the debt
and earnings outcomes of programs are
a subset of the myriad of factors
students may consider important in
deciding where to attend.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested
that the Department and the stakeholder
community further discuss the
application of the D/E rates and
earnings premium metrics to all
programs at all institutions before
addressing the issue of student
acknowledgments. This commenter
noted that the required reporting of data
will add costs and burden to
institutions, particularly underresourced institutions.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
that the decision to apply financial
value transparency metrics to programs
across sectors and credential levels
requires any further discussion. Because
students consider both GE and non-GE
programs when making postsecondary
enrollment choices, providing
comparable information for students
would help them find the program that
104 Baum, Sandy & Schwartz, Saul (2006). How
Much Debt is Too Much? Defining Benchmarks for
Managing Student Debt (eric.ed.gov/?id=ED562688).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
best meets their needs across any sector.
As discussed under ‘‘Reporting’’ above,
while we are sensitive to the fiscal and
logistical needs of institutions, we
maintain that any burden on institutions
to meet the reporting requirements is
outweighed by the benefits of the
transparency and accountability
frameworks of the regulations to
students, prospective students, their
families, and the public.
Changes: None.
Financial Outcomes and Other
Outcomes
Comments: Many commenters posited
that although economic mobility is an
important factor to many students, the
value of higher education extends
beyond purely financial benefits and the
Department should recognize on the
program information website, and on
related warnings and acknowledgments,
that there are many ways to measure the
value of postsecondary education, such
as increased civic participation and
engagement; better health and wellbeing; increased sense of work
engagement; lower reliance upon social
safety-net programs; decreased rates of
incarceration; decreased risk of
homelessness; increased personal
security; improved social status; and
sense of personal achievement.
Commenters said that focusing on
program earnings for all programs
promoted a false equivalency that all
educational programs should be
measured on this basis. Some other
commenters noted earnings may not
fully capture the value of benefits, such
as health insurance, and job amenities,
such as a flexible schedule.
One commenter further cited a
study 105 highlighting additional
individual and societal benefits of
higher education, such as increased
likelihood of employment; improved
health choices; increased volunteerism;
increased neighborhood interactions
and trust; and intergenerational benefits.
Noting the numerous non-pecuniary
benefits of postsecondary education,
several commenters expressed concern
that the nature of the D/E rates and EP
measures is too simple to adequately
reflect the full value of an education and
one commenter opined that measuring a
program’s value based solely on the D/
E rates and EP measures would be
arbitrary and capricious. Many
commenters noted that the D/E rates
measure is not the only metric that can
be used to assess the value of
105 Trostel, Philip (2015). It’s Not Just the Money:
The Benefits of College Education to Individuals
and to Society. LUMINA Foundation
(www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-notjust-the-money.pdf).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
postsecondary programs and suggested
that things like holistic value, social
impact, import of work, or long-term
economic value could also be used to
measure the value of programs.
Discussion: The Department is not
attempting to assess the full value of the
education that programs provide based
only on their debt and earnings
outcomes through the D/E rates and EP
measures. The Department recognizes
that not all of the benefits of a
postsecondary education are measurable
or captured by debt and earnings, but
low earnings or high debt burdens can
significantly impact even those students
who benefitted in other ways from their
programs.
Further, while the Department agrees
there are aspects of job quality that are
distinct from earnings, we believe that
earnings, which unlike non-monetary
compensation can be calculated
consistently for most graduates through
administrative data sources, is the best
way to capture the employment
outcomes of program graduates for
purposes of implementing the gainful
employment statutory requirement. For
instance, in most cases non-monetary
compensation does not aid in assessing
the ability of graduates to afford
repayment of student debt.
The financial value transparency
framework aims to provide transparency
to students about dimensions of the
financial consequences of attending
postsecondary programs. In particular,
these measures will be used to convey
information to students about the
typical costs, borrowing, and earnings
outcomes for students who graduate
from a program, and whether typical
students who complete the program end
up with high-debt-burdens, and
therefore may be at elevated risk for
associated adverse borrower outcomes.
On the Department’s program
information website, a program’s
outcomes under the D/E rates and EP
metrics will be provided to students
alongside other financial value
information to help students understand
how the program may help in achieving
their goals. As a steward of taxpayer
funds charged with ensuring the proper
administration of the title IV, HEA
programs, the Department seeks to
require that students are aware of such
information before they enroll in
programs with high-debt burdens. For
non-GE programs, we do not limit aid or
eligibility for such programs but allow
students to decide whether, upon
considering this information, the
program has value to them.
Change: None.
Comments: Commenters also
suggested that focusing on relative
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
education debt could harm some
students by encouraging them to limit
education loan borrowing by sacrificing
basic needs like food and housing or
promoting some type of employment
even when attending school full time.
Discussion: We believe it is
reasonable for students to know what
the average education debt and earnings
are for an educational program and
believe that this information can be
considered along with many of the other
factors suggested by the commenters.
The information the Department will
present is not describing debt as bad or
to be avoided. Rather, it is giving
students information about how
affordable their debt payments will be
based on the typical earnings of
students in their programs. Students
deserve to be aware of this information,
and institutions have the capacity to
control their pricing to avoid subjecting
their students to unaffordable debts.
Changes: None.
Potential Impacts on Lower Earning
Fields
Comments: Commenters suggested
that focusing on program earnings takes
a narrow view that higher education is
primarily about securing a job and
misses the value of a liberal arts
education and the value to society from
those graduates. Some commenters
emphasized that many students pursue
careers in fields that help people such
as social work, counseling, leadership,
teaching, and a variety of cosmetology
programs including hairstylists and
estheticians. Nursing was another field
where commenters noted that some
institutions prepare instructors and
practitioners to work in health care
services where some jobs would not
produce high earnings. Commenters
also suggested that teaching programs
should be excluded from application of
the GE program accountability
framework.
Discussion: The Department does not
agree that providing information about
education debt and average earnings for
program graduates to students and
families ignores the value of programs
that may have lower earnings outcomes.
Again, the Department is attempting to
make debt and earnings information
available to students and families on a
comparable basis for programs so that
they can use it to support the different
career choices that may be under
consideration, or to find a program
within a particular field that is most
beneficial to them.
As we demonstrate in Table 4.11 in
the RIA, most programs in most fields
pass the D/E rates measure, including
programs that provide training for
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70021
occupations in healthcare. In healthcare
(Health Professions and Related)—the
program cited by the commenters—8.2
percent of GE programs did not pass the
D/E rates or the EP measure and 2.0
percent of non-GE programs did not
pass the D/E rates or the EP measure.
Similarly, education training programs
(i.e., programs with a two-digit CIP code
of 13) are less likely to fail the D/E rates
or EP measure than other programs. We
note that teaching programs that
successfully place their students in
teaching jobs are unlikely to fail to meet
the earnings premium criteria. For
example, data from the National
Education Association’s Teacher Salary
Benchmark Report indicates that among
reporting school districts,
approximately 76 percent of teachers
worked at schools that offered a starting
teaching salary of at least $40,000.106
Even States with lower salaries have
average starting salaries at least $5,000
higher than the State’s EP threshold.107
The Department fundamentally
disagrees that ignoring the financial
implications of students’ college choices
is an acceptable or necessary strategy to
ensure that students pursue jobs in
critical fields to society.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
contended that publication of the
financial value metrics could limit
access to, or discourage students from
enrolling in, arts and performing arts
programs. These commenters stressed
that these careers should be available to
all and not just to affluent students who
can attend without Federal financial
aid.
Discussion: The Department believes
that students of arts programs will
benefit from consistent information
about the typical debt and earnings
experienced by a program graduate,
particularly if the D/E outcomes for
program graduates are in a range
associated with high likelihood of
student loan default. For non-GE
programs, receiving this information
does not preclude their ability to attend
the program—it simply alerts them to
the potential risk based on the
program’s students’ outcomes.
Approximately 12 percent of arts
programs are GE programs.
Arts programs that fall under GE
regulation have a failure rate that is
similar to GE programs overall.
According to the Program Performance
Data (PPD) described in Table 4.11 of
106 See Nat’l Ed. Ass’n (2022). Teacher Salary
Benchmarks (www.nea.org/resource-library/teachersalary-benchmarks).
107 See Nat’l Ed. Ass’n (2022). Teacher Salary
Benchmarks (www.nea.org/resource-library/teachersalary-benchmarks).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70022
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
the RIA, 5.3 percent of all GE programs
fail due to D/E, EP, or both. Among the
1,042 GE arts programs (programs with
a two-digit CIP code of 50), a similar
share, 5.5 percent, have a failing status.
Among the 7,518 arts programs that are
non-GE programs, failure rates are
slightly higher than for programs
overall, but still relatively low. Using
the PPD, 1.2 percent of all non-GE
programs fail debt-to-earnings (DTE),
EP, or both, and 3.7 percent of arts
programs fail.
Although commenters acknowledged
that arts careers are financially
undercompensated relative to other
career paths, federally aided students
enrolled in arts programs tend to come
from backgrounds similar to students
enrolled in other programs, indicating
that, among federally aided students,
students from economically
disadvantaged backgrounds are not
currently dissuaded from pursuing a
career in the arts. For example, the share
of students who are Pell recipients
within arts programs is broadly similar
to the share of recipients overall across
programs (Table 1.1). Institutions that
are concerned that financial
transparency will dissuade students
from lower-income backgrounds from
pursuing arts degrees could take steps
such as packaging additional aid for
students pursuing arts programs. This
would decrease the risk of a high DTE
and potentially mitigate the effect of
lower typical salaries in the first few
years of an arts career.
TABLE 1.1—MEAN AND MEDIAN PELL SHARE, ACROSS PROGRAMS
All programs
Arts programs (CIP2 = 50)
Mean
(%)
Median
(%)
Number of
programs
Mean
(%)
Median
(%)
Number of
programs
Credential Level: Undergraduate .............
(UG) Certificates ......................................
Associate ..........................................
Bachelor’s .........................................
........................
53
61
38
........................
60
67
36
18,033
........................
25,807
47,643
........................
45
64
41
........................
40
69
40
453
........................
1,248
3,792
Total ...........................................
47
50
91,483
47
48
5,493
Source: 2022 Program Performance Data.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
expressed concern that the focus on
debt-to-earnings and earnings could
lead students and prospective students
to prioritize salary over public service.
By publishing these data and possibly
categorizing certain programs as ‘‘low
value,’’ we may discourage students
from pursuing careers that are less
lucrative but that have substantial value,
such as careers in government or the
nonprofit sector.
Discussion: The Department
acknowledges the concern that students
may be dissuaded from pursing
programs, and ultimately, careers, that
are primarily in the public sector or
with nonprofit organizations. National
data from the American Community
Survey (ACS) on earnings by sector
show, however, that the typical
associate or bachelor’s degree graduate
working for government or a nonprofit
substantially out-earns similarly aged
workers with only a high school
credential (Table 1.1). We estimate that
a government worker with an associate
degree has median earnings more than
$13,700 higher than the overall median
earnings for those with a high school
diploma. A government worker with a
bachelor’s degree has earnings that are
more than $19,100 higher. Those
working in the nonprofit sector earn
around $7,100 (associate) and $15,200
(bachelor’s degree) more relative to
similar workers with a high school
diploma.
TABLE 1.2—MEDIAN EARNINGS, WORKERS IN LABOR FORCE AGE 25–34
Credential
Overall
High School or Equivalent ...............................................................................
Associate Degree ............................................................................................
Bachelor’s Degree ...........................................................................................
Graduate Degree .............................................................................................
$25,453
32,049
45,811
49,639
Private
sector
$25,569
31,961
48,870
52,147
Federal,
state, or
local govt.
$31,961
39,200
44,638
47,941
Nonprofit
sector
$21,582
32,580
40,725
45,000
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Source: American Community Survey, 2019, 5-year estimates.
These data indicate that workers
within a given degree level tend to have
relatively similar earnings across private
sector, government, and nonprofit
employers. And for those with an
associate degree, employment within a
Federal, State, or local government
yields higher median earnings than
employment in the private sector. While
working in the private sector is more
lucrative, at the median, for bachelor’s
degree and graduate degree holders,
these differences are much smaller than
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
the difference relative to the earnings
premium threshold at the national level.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
expressed concern that publication of
financial value metrics could deter
students from graduate education. Given
differences in student loan eligibility
and available Federal aid, commenters
suggest that the proposed financial
value metrics do not align well with the
goals and earnings trajectories of those
who enroll in graduate education.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Discussion: The Department aims to
provide students with accurate
information to help inform their
choices. We acknowledge that some
students might decide that not attending
school might be the best option after
obtaining the information.
Graduate students are eligible to
borrow up to the cost of attendance for
their program, while undergraduates are
subject to substantially lower limits on
borrowing, depending on their
enrollment level and status as a
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
dependent or independent student.
Because of the increased eligibility for
student loans and their generally higher
earnings outcomes, graduate programs
that do not pass the GE thresholds
typically fail the D/E standard of the GE
rule, rather than the EP.
The Department believes that the D/
E metric is valid across both
undergraduate and graduate programs.
As noted above, few graduate programs
have median earnings below the typical
high school student, but many programs
have very high debt levels due to the
lack of loan limits. This can make debt
unaffordable even on a middle-class
salary. Moreover, from a taxpayer
perspective, as shown in Table 2.10 of
the RIA, D/E is highly correlated with
the taxpayer subsidy on student loans—
if debt is high relative to earnings, it is
unlikely a borrower will fully payoff
their loans while on an income driven
repayment plan.
The Department also notes aspects of
the rule that are favorable to graduate
programs. First, the debt used in the
actual D/E calculations will be capped
at the total net cost for tuition, fees, and
books. This cap particularly affects
graduate programs, as many graduate
students borrow substantially for living
costs in addition to direct costs of the
program. As we note in the RIA, we do
not have data reported by institutions to
estimate directly how this cap will
affect the share of programs that pass
the D/E rates. An analysis by New
America, however, suggests that the
debt cap might reduce the number of
graduate programs projected to fail in
the RIA substantially by about 50
percent.108 Because institutions have
more control over direct program costs,
some institution concerns about
graduate financial value metrics will
likely be mitigated. Furthermore, in the
D/E rates calculation, graduate debt is
amortized over a 15-year repayment
period for master’s degree programs and
over a 20-year period for doctoral and
first professional degrees. The use of a
longer repayment period acknowledges
the possibility that long term earnings
are higher in proportion to earnings
measured 3 years after graduation, the
potentially larger amounts of debt that
some graduate students may take on and
allows for smaller annual payments
based on a longer repayment period. We
address additional concerns relevant to
graduate programs, such as licensing
and residencies for graduate programs
108 See
Caldwell, Tia & Garza, Roxanne (2023).
Previous Projections Overestimated Gainful
Employment Failures: Almost All HBCUs & MSI
Graduate Programs Pass. New America (https://
www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/
ge-failures-overestimated/).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
that may result in lower initial earnings
due to externally imposed constraints,
in other sections of this preamble.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters noted
that many jobs in the entertainment
industry may be impacted by the
financial value and transparency
regulations, given that a number of
students in those fields are dependent
upon Federal education assistance. The
commenters suggested that those
students may become more restricted in
their opportunities to pursue careers in
performing arts, music and education
compared to students from more
affluent families. Commenters noted
that in general, the United States
provides less support for students of the
performing arts compared to other
countries, and further opined that the
lower wage for these jobs is beyond the
control of the institutions providing
those programs, notwithstanding the
contributions those jobs make toward
creativity and societal wellbeing.
Discussion: We recognize that
educational programs can provide long
term value and enrichment to students
in multiple ways, and that some student
may be interested in arts and
entertainment careers for non-pecuniary
reasons. We nonetheless note that the
education debt and program earnings
experienced by program graduates at
specific institutions are a significant upfront consideration for any student to
consider. Students looking at particular
programs offered at multiple institutions
may also consider the relative education
debt and program earnings when
selecting an institution. Institutions may
also use the information about average
education debt and earnings to consider
program changes that would better serve
students entering into careers with
relatively large education debt
compared to the near-term earnings. We
appreciate the commenters’ concerns
about the level of support for
performing arts relative to other
countries, but respectfully note that
such broader issues of the economic and
social value of performing arts are
beyond the scope of this rule.
Changes: None.
Data Concerns and Other Information or
Metrics
Comments: Several commenters
suggested including measures of student
satisfaction among the other measures
listed in § 668.43(d)(1)(ii) to include on
the program information website to
provide context for the financial value
measures.
Discussion: We recognize that there
are many factors students consider
when choosing to enroll, or continue, in
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70023
a program, and also that education can
confer many benefits beyond financial
value, including satisfaction with the
program. However, we are here focused
on factors that affect students’ financial
well-being, and the return on the title
IV, HEA financial investment. Low
earnings and high debt burdens can
negatively affect students who might
benefit in other ways from their
programs. More generally, measures of
student satisfaction do not exist for all
programs and the Department has no
way of collecting such data in a
systematic fashion at present.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters noted
that program-level graduation rates
could have a substantial impact on
financial value measures. They noted
that a program that graduates a small
share of enrolled students may have
strong financial value measures, but
overall financial value results may be
poor for those who never completed the
program. The commenters suggested
that we provide information on the
likelihood of completing the program as
important context for the financial value
metrics.
Discussion: The financial value
metrics measure the earnings and debt
only for those who complete a given
program. The Department believes that
these measures best represent the
outcomes for a student who naturally
anticipates to complete a given program.
Enrolled students who do not complete
could have outcomes that are worse
overall than those for completers, but
this is not necessarily the case. For
example, non-completers could leave a
program because they were offered a job
that pays more than they anticipate they
would earn if they completed their
program. Further, those who do not
complete a program are likely to leave
with less debt than those who do,
potentially lowering D/E measures.
At present, program-level graduation
rates are not consistently measured or
collected by the Department.
Measurement of program graduation
rates raises several measurement
challenges.109 For example, some
bachelor’s degree programs do not
formally consider a student part of a
program or major until their sophomore
or junior year, which could
substantially skew the graduation rate
relative to a program which counts
students starting from their freshman
109 Blagg, Kristin & Rainer, Macy (2020).
Measuring Program-Level Completion Rates: A
Demonstration of Metrics Using Virginia Higher
Education Data. Urban Institute: Washington, DC
(www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/
101636/measuring_program-level_completion_
rates_1_3.pdf).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70024
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
year. Still, the Department strongly
agrees with the importance of holding
institutions accountable for program
completion and will explore
development of accurate measures. The
rule includes completion rates at the
institution or program level among a set
of important contextual information that
may be included on the program
information website.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
requested that the Department include
on the program information website
information on cohort default rates, or a
program’s loan repayment rates, as
additional context regarding a student’s
ability to manage or repay their debt.
Discussion: We agree that a program’s
loan repayment rate may be important
information for students or taxpayers,
and we note that this information was
included in the list of proposed
information under § 668.43(d)(1).
Although the cohort default rate
(CDR) is an important measure of
institutional accountability in ensuring
that students do not experience
exceptionally high default rates after
leaving a program, an overall CDR does
not measure outcomes of a given
program. Moreover, graduate PLUS
loans are not included as part of the
CDR calculation, so these rates do not
capture borrowers’ outcomes even for
broad sets of graduate programs. The
Department will carefully consider what
borrower outcome information will
provide students with the clearest sense
of the financial risks of their program
choices, including whether institution
level measures may be appropriate to
provide where program level measures
may be unavailable.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters noted
that high percentages of their career
program graduates work in the fields
associated with their training, unlike
many students with associate degrees
from public and nonprofit institutions
that get jobs in unrelated fields.
Commenters also noted that other jobs
such as sales often start with lower
salaries that increase over time as they
learn their trades on the job.
Discussion: The regulations do not
track earnings by source but provide
some measure of the average education
debt and average earnings that program
graduates have. Graduates of career
training programs who work in those
fields may experience higher earnings
than program graduates from nonprofit
and public institutions who work in
unrelated fields. The regulations will
provide students considering either type
of program with information about the
education debt and earnings associated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
with those programs to support them
making better informed choices when
they enroll.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asserted
that 4-year degree programs can charge
students higher prices despite having no
industry connections. A few other
commenters noted that many students
in 4-year programs are unable to get
jobs, while students in shorter career
and technical education (CTE) programs
(which cost less) are able to get jobs.
Discussion: We agree that CTE
programs are important. By ensuring
that programs subject to the GE program
eligibility requirements, including CTE
programs, prepare students for gainful
employment in a recognized
occupation, we expect that the GE
program accountability framework will
drive improvements in CTE programs
that are not providing students with
earnings that allow them to afford their
debt or leaving them better off than if
they had not pursued a postsecondary
credential. For 4-year programs that are
not subject to the GE program
accountability framework, students will
be able to obtain critical information
about their financial value, including
their costs and student debt and
earnings outcomes, to inform their
education decision making.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
suggested that the Department should
play a role identifying unique missions
of institutions, such as historically black
colleges and universities and Tribal
colleges and universities because of the
social and cultural impacts these
institutions provide as non-financial
value.
Discussion: Under § 668.43(d)(1), the
Department will provide, through a
website hosted by the Department,
program-level information on the
typical earnings outcomes for graduates
and their borrowing amounts, cost of
attendance, and sources of financial aid
to help students make more informed
choices and allow taxpayers and other
stakeholders to better monitor whether
public and private resources are being
well used. Nothing in the regulations
precludes institutions from
supplementing the financial value
information provided on the
Department website with additional
information about the institution and its
programs, including information for
students and families about their
missions and values. However, the
Department website will be focused on
financial value, consistent with the
Department’s obligation to administer
the title IV, HEA financial assistance
programs.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters noted
that the debt and earnings data used in
the financial value transparency metrics
do not precisely align with those
measures presented in the College
Scorecard.
Discussion: The financial value
transparency metrics are designed for
accountability purposes (with respect to
GE programs) as well as for
transparency (with respect to GE and
eligible non-GE programs). Because
these data serve different, though
complementary, purposes the metrics
are not quite the same as those in the
College Scorecard although there are
strong correlations between the
information in the two datasets. For
example, median earnings in this rule,
similar to the 2014 Prior Rule, is
calculated as the median earnings
among all program completers including
the ‘‘zeros’’—i.e., individuals
successfully matched in the list of
program completers who have no
earnings from employment. Especially
for career training programs this
measurement choice captures whether
students find employment as a measure
of program success. Similarly, median
debt under this regulation is calculated
by capping individual borrowing
amounts at the net direct costs charged
by the institution. This attempts to
isolate student borrowing linked to
factors more directly controlled by
institutions. Still, broader measures of
debt can be calculated and used for
transparency purposes. The Department
will carefully consider how to present
information to students to avoid
potential confusion.
Changes: None.
General Comments on the GE Program
Accountability Framework (§§ 600.10,
600.21, 668.91, 668.601, 668.602,
668.603, 668.604, 668.605, and 668.606)
General Support and Opposition
Comments: Many commenters
expressed support for building on the
2014 GE Prior Rule, including the
addition of the earnings premium
metric. These commenters believed that
this metric would ensure that students
only enroll in programs that would
result in them being gainfully employed
upon completing the program.
Commenters also supported the
inclusion of the D/E rates metric,
arguing that this measure would protect
taxpayers and students. Some
commenters suggested that because of
the rule, students will shift from
enrolling at low-performing programs to
programs with better outcomes,
including shifting across sectors, similar
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
to what happened when institutions
with high cohort default rates lost
eligibility to participate in the Federal
student aid programs.
Discussion: We thank the commenters
for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asserted
that these regulations would help to
protect students from taking on high
levels of debt to obtain credentials with
little to no value. The commenter also
contended that there should be greater
consequences for schools that commit
fraud.
Discussion: We agree there should be
greater consequences for schools that
commit fraud. The Department’s Office
of the Inspector General (OIG) identifies
and investigates fraud, waste, abuse,
and criminal activity involving
Department funds. Where we believe it
is warranted, we can refer a situation to
the OIG, which conducts criminal and
civil investigations. Additionally,
members of the public may report
suspected fraud, waste, abuse, or
criminal activity—including fraud or
misuse of Federal student aid funds.
The OIG maintains a telephone hotline
and an online form to facilitate
submission of such reports.
While these regulations do not replace
other robust Department efforts aimed at
ensuring program compliance and
program integrity, the rule should make
predatory behavior less attractive and
less lucrative if poorly performing GE
programs are not eligible to participate
in title IV, HEA.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters
supported the GE rule because they
believe it will help stop predatory
recruitment practices that specifically
target marginalized and underserved
communities, including people of color,
people with low socioeconomic status,
single parents, and veterans. These
commenters claimed that programs at
these predatory schools have low
graduation rates, high student debt
loads, high student loan default rates,
and higher tuition than comparable
programs at State and community
colleges.
Several other commenters expressed
support for the GE accountability
provisions, noting that most borrower
defense loan discharges have been for
students who attended for-profit
institutions, and said that most
accountability measures should focus
on the institutions where large costs to
the taxpayers have been incurred.
Commenters noted that many
completers from some for-profit
institutions have incomes that would
qualify them to make zero payments
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
under the Department’s recently
proposed income-driven repayment
plan and create additional costs for
taxpayers.
Discussion: We thank the commenters
for their support and agree the GE rules
apply to programs where students need
protection.
Changes: None.
Purpose
Comments: Many commenters noted
that the EP and D/E metrics do not
capture all the ways that programs
might be valuable for students and
society, and thought the measures too
narrowly focused on financial
outcomes.
Discussion: In the GE program
accountability framework, we use the
EP and D/E metrics to assess whether
programs are preparing students for
gainful employment, consistent with
statutory eligibility requirements. But,
the use of particular performance
metrics pursuant to the GE provisions of
the HEA and the Department’s
rulemaking authority is not a
commentary on the values that students
and others may place on postsecondary
education. As we demonstrate in Table
4.11 of the RIA, the majority of
programs in most fields do not lead to
high debt burdens or low earnings. As
a result, we do not expect the rule to
deprive students of postsecondary
options that offer the nonfinancial
benefits of greatest importance to them.
We underscore that the rule sets
minimum standards of performance for
career training programs, and for
informing students in non-GE programs
about potential financial risk. It does not
attempt to distinguish among or rate
programs based on their earnings above
these standards beyond providing
students with information. As such, we
expect that programs meeting these
minimum thresholds of financial
outcomes for their students will still
need to demonstrate how they help
students in pursuing other goals that
may be important to them.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
suggested that the proposed GE program
accountability framework will not fix
the current systemic problems. Some
commenters proposed that, rather than
targeting so-called ‘‘low value
programs,’’ we should address systemic
issues contributing to the student debt
crisis. For example, these commenters
suggested that we provide adequate
funding and resources to public
institutions, implement more affordable
tuition models, and expand financial
literacy programs.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70025
Discussion: The Department agrees
that some systemic changes are needed
to address the student debt crisis. And,
in a variety of initiatives, the
Department is responding to that crisis.
For example, the Department recently
published a new rule on IDR plans for
student loans. Notwithstanding the
importance of addressing systemic
issues, the Department is charged with
implementing and enforcing the HEA
limits on title IV eligibility for GE
programs and has concluded that
programs that leave students unable to
pay off their loans, or with earnings no
greater than a comparable high school
graduate, are not meeting the statutory
requirements for title IV, HEA funding.
The final rule will make meaningful
strides in deterring students from
attending programs that leave them with
unaffordable debt and no improvement
to their earnings. As noted in Tables
4.25 and 4.26 of the RIA, most students
have available many alternative
programs that do not fail the metrics,
and these programs are very likely to
lead to higher earnings and lower debt.
Therefore, we expect the rule will result
in students attending programs that
require less borrowing or provide a
better financial value in that they will
lead to higher earnings relative to the
amounts borrowed.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
suggested that it would be more
effective to limit borrowing in lowperforming programs rather than to
remove all Federal funding, noting that
this would still protect students from
high educational debt without limiting
the types of programs that are available
for them to pursue their passions and
career goals in fields that may not be
high-earning. One commenter noted that
students have differing career objectives
and was of the opinion that the
Department and institutions offering
those programs should strike a balance
to keep these options open for students,
suggesting that career counseling and
accurate information could support
those outcomes and a diverse workforce.
Other commenters said that without
striking a more holistic approach in the
proposed regulations, there could be
reductions in program diversity and
more limited student choices available.
Providing more quality assurance
measures and a broader evaluation of
other factors, such as curriculum,
student satisfaction and achievements,
were suggested as additional
components to use with the financialvalue measures in the proposed
regulations. Commenters also suggested
the Department should work with the
higher education community to develop
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70026
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
alternative metrics that speak to a more
holistic spectrum of success
determinants.
Discussion: We agree there are many
potential ways that students might be
shielded from unaffordable debt or
programs that fail to boost their
earnings. Institutions are in the best
position to limit their costs and limit
student borrowing for direct costs (the
subset of borrowing measured under the
metrics in these regulations), and to
provide counseling and guidance to
students in choosing programs that
prepare them for success. The
Department’s authority and ability to
monitor curriculum quality across
programs is limited. As noted
elsewhere, these rules do not attempt to
serve as a holistic measure of program
quality. Instead, they focus on setting
minimum standards aimed at ensuring
that career training programs prepare
students for gainful employment, and,
more generally, to protect students from
programs that may not improve their
financial well-being.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter argued
that controlling college costs should not
be part of the Department’s role, but it
should instead concern itself with
reining in lending. The commenter
argued that the Department should set
aggregate loan limits for all students to
current limits for undergraduate
students.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with the commenter that its role does
not include encouraging institutions to
offer programs that are financially
valuable to students when the students’
debt and likely future earnings are taken
into account. The Department also does
not have the ability to reduce aggregate
loan limits for graduate students, since
those limits are established by statute.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters argued
that it is not a school’s responsibility to
ensure that a student pays back their
loans. According to these commenters,
that responsibility lies with the
borrower.
Discussion: The Department believes
that pursuant to the GE statutory
requirement, career training programs
should be held responsible for ensuring
the amount their students need to
borrow is reasonable relative to the
earnings they might expect from the
career for which they are being trained.
If programs set unreasonable tuition
levels that lead students to borrow more
than they can afford to repay, this puts
borrowers at risk of default and adverse
impacts on their credit and puts the
taxpayer at risk of having to bear the
cost of the loans. Under the D/E rates
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
measure, institutions are not held
responsible for loan repayment
outcomes. Rather, the D/E rates portion
of the transparency framework provides
a means to assess whether debt burdens
are excessive given the typical earnings
of program completers, and whether
students’ labor market earnings improve
relative to students who do not pursue
postsecondary credentials. The GE
accountability framework applies this
metric as a condition of eligibility for
career programs. As addressed below,
we believe the compliance burden
created by these regulations is modest
and well justified by the benefits
expected from the rule.
Changes: None.
Scope
Comments: Several commenters
stated that it is unfair to group together
all private and for-profit schools when
there are only a few ‘‘bad actors’’
causing problems. They asserted that
these GE regulations will punish
schools that are acting in good faith, and
that there should not be a ‘‘one-size-fitsall’’ solution to these bad actors. They
argued that different regulations should
apply to for-profit and nonprofit schools
since their missions differ.
Other commenters viewed the
distinction between GE and non-GE
programs as unclear, and argued that
instituting sanctions for some programs,
but not for others, based on sector or
credential type is not appropriate.
Commenters highlighted that an
institution’s tax status was not a good
reason to treat programs differently
under the proposed eligibility measures
and voiced some concern that
institutions with failing programs could
change their tax status to avoid being
held accountable under the eligibility
provisions. Some commenters said the
proposed regulations were politically
motivated to target the career training
programs and suggested that more
emphasis should be placed on removing
Federal funds from programs that
pushed false information or promoted
activism and political agendas. The
regulations were described by these
commenters as an effort to quickly
eradicate the proprietary school sector
instead of proposing a set of guardrails
that would have encouraged institutions
to operate within that system.
Discussion: The GE accountability
framework applies to gainful
employment programs through
§ 668.601. Section 668.2 defines
‘‘gainful employment program’’ as an
educational program offered by an
institution under § 668.8(c)(3) or (d) and
identified by a combination of the
institution’s six-digit Office of
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Postsecondary Education ID (OPEID)
number, the program’s six-digit CIP
code as assigned by the institution or
determined by the Secretary, and the
program’s credential level. This
definition is consistent with sections
101(b) and 102(b) and (c) of the HEA.
Under the HEA, institutions must
establish program-level eligibility for
each ‘‘program of training to prepare
students for gainful employment in a
recognized occupation.’’ 110 GE
programs include nearly all educational
programs at for-profit institutions of
higher education, as well as non-degree
programs at public and private
nonprofit institutions, such as
community colleges. With respect to
comments that some institutions may
change their tax status to remove their
programs from being subject to the
eligibility measures, applications to do
so are reviewed independently by the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the
Department to make sure the institution
qualifies as a nonprofit entity.
In addition to being statutorily
obligated to confirm whether GE
programs are eligible for HEA
assistance, we believe that it is
appropriate to protect students in GE
programs in all sectors, to help protect
students pursuing career training
through such programs from being left
with unaffordable debt or with no
improvement in their labor market
prospects beyond what they might have
achieved without earning a
postsecondary credential. The GE
accountability framework is based on
objective and evidence-based measures
of student outcomes and, rather than
being a one-size-fits-all approach, its
impact on institutions is directly in
proportion to the number of students
they have enrolled in programs that are
not serving students well based on the
D/E rates and EP measures. The GE
framework, applied as a measure of a
program’s continuing title IV, HEA
eligibility, will be similarly applied to
all GE programs, regardless of location
or student demographics. GE programs
will be held to the standards for GE
programs uniformly, regardless of
whether they are taught at public,
proprietary, or nonprofit private
institutions.
The Department does not have
authority to expand the definition of a
GE program to include non-GE
programs. The financial value
transparency framework is the
Department’s attempt to account for
110 20 U.S.C. 1002(b)(1)(A)(i), (c)(1)(A). See also
20 U.S.C. 1088(b)(1)(A)(i), which refers to a
recognized profession. For further discussion in the
NPRM, see 88 FR 32300, 32306–32311 (May 19,
2023).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
eligible non-GE programs, by providing
students in such programs with
important information. Other statutory
provisions apply more broadly to GE
and non-GE programs, and the
Department will use the tools at its
disposal to protect students and
improve outcomes. For example, we are
also addressing eligible non-GE
programs through other Department
initiatives, such as the final rule we
published last year on Change in
Ownership and Change in Control.111
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
asserted that the Department could
require the eligibility framework to
apply to all programs, based upon the
Department’s authority under 20 U.S.C.
1087d(a)(4) or 20 U.S.C. 1087d(a)(6), to
include additional conditions necessary
to protect the interests of the United
States when approving an institution’s
participation in the Direct Loan
programs. Other commenters said it is
arbitrary for the Department to treat
comparable programs differently and
suggested that this different treatment
violated a requirement in the HEA that
the Department’s regulations must be
uniformly applied and enforced.
Discussion: We disagree with the
commenters’ suggestions and criticism.
The Department must use its statutory
authority in ways that accord with the
various distinctions drawn in the HEA.
The HEA conditions eligibility of some,
but not all, programs on preparing
students for gainful employment in a
recognized occupation or profession.
The commenters did not explain how
those HEA provisions regarding GE
programs fit with the commenters’
suggested use of the HEA provisions
regarding program participation
agreements. Likewise, we disagree with
commenters’ arguments regarding
uniformity in Department regulations.
The commenters did not identify a basis
for their recommended conclusion in 20
U.S.C. 1232(c), which refers to uniform
application and enforcement throughout
the 50 States rather than across program
types. Nor did commenters identify any
other statutory provision that requires
GE program regulations to bind non-GE
programs. In addition, linking the
program accountability framework to
the Department’s Direct Loan authority
as the commenters suggest would
exclude programs that do not participate
in the Direct Loan program. The
commenters may prefer that gainful
employment results be expected of nonGE programs, and we understand the
policy considerations associated with
that issue, but we lack persuasive
111 87
FR 65426 (Oct. 28, 2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
reasons to conclude that the
Department’s regulations must adopt
that position as a matter of law.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
stated that the proposed GE
Accountability framework fails to
account for the significant and multiple
economic, social, and governmental
differences between Puerto Rico and the
United States. For example, these
commenters stressed that Puerto Rico
has no community college system and
relies on proprietary institutions to
provide a significant and varied portion
of career-oriented educational
opportunities. Therefore, these
commenters advised that proprietary
institutions in Puerto Rico award a far
higher proportion of the island’s
postsecondary credentials than is the
case on the mainland. The commenters
contended that the proposed rule would
place access to such programs in serious
jeopardy. These same commenters
stated if implemented as-is, without
accounting for Puerto Rico’s unique
circumstances and challenges, the
population, economy, and multiple
industries on the Island will be
adversely and irreparably harmed.
One commenter emphasized the ways
in which earnings measurement issues
are more a particular concern given the
unique challenges facing Puerto Rico,
stating that the justifications offered by
the Department for not including an
alternate earnings appeal fail to
acknowledge the unique nature of
Puerto Rico’s economy. Citing the
Department’s claim that making
accommodation for under-reporting of
income would ‘‘differentially reward
programs,’’ the commenter submitted
that the desire to be evaluated based on
accurate data is not a desire to be
rewarded but to address the fact that
nonreporting and underreporting of
income are widely recognized
challenges facing Puerto Rico.
Discussion: As we noted in the
NPRM, the Department is aware that, in
some cases, using earnings data for high
school graduates to estimate an earnings
threshold may not be as reliable as the
earnings data from the ACS, and
welcomed comment on what data might
be available to estimate the threshold in
U.S. Territories.112 In response to the
commenters’ concerns, the Department
further investigated issues of data
quality in Puerto Rico as well as other
U.S. Territories and the freely associated
states.
Through this investigation, we
identified several concerns with data
elements used in the rule with regard to
112 See
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
88 FR 32300, 32333 (May 19, 2023).
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70027
their application to programs at
institutions in U.S. Territories and
freely associated states. First, there is no
robust source of earnings information in
most U.S. Territories that would allow
us to measure high school earnings.
While we considered using a different
threshold, such as 150 percent of the
Federal Poverty Level, available data
(data on high school earnings from the
Puerto Rico Community Survey)
suggested this approach would yield a
threshold that is dramatically higher
than high school earnings. While data
do exist for Puerto Rico, the coverage
rate of the Puerto Rico Community
Survey (PRCS) is significantly lower
than that of the ACS.113 Moreover, the
Federal Poverty Line (officially known
as the poverty guidelines), used in the
calculation of discretionary debt-toearnings measures is not defined for the
U.S. Territories and freely associated
states. The Federal Poverty Line is a
component of the D/E metric, used to
define ‘‘discretionary earnings’’ by
subtracting an estimate of the income
required for necessary expenses. As a
result, the Department is not confident
that the thresholds used to determine an
affordable amount of debt in the D/E
rates calculations are appropriate for
programs in these locations.
Because of these concerns, the
Department will exempt all programs
located in the Territories or freely
associated states from most of the
requirements in the transparency
framework under subpart Q, and from
the GE accountability provisions under
subpart S. We will still require such
programs to comply with the reporting
requirements in § 668.408, will still
follow the procedures in §§ 668.403(b)
and (d) and 668.405(b) and (c) to
calculate median debt and obtain
earnings information, and will include
debt, earnings, and price information on
the Department’s program information
website established in § 668.43.
Changes: We have revised
§ 668.401(b) to exempt the Territories
and freely associated states from the
application of subpart Q, except that
such institutions remain subject to the
reporting requirements in § 668.408 and
the Department will follow the
procedures in §§ 668.403(b) and (d) and
668.405(b) and (c) to calculate median
debt and obtain earnings information for
their GE programs and eligible non-GE
113 According to the Census, in the 2021 ACS and
PRCS the coverage rate in Puerto Rico is 80.9
percent, relative to 94.5 percent in the United States
and Washington, DC. The lowest state (Alaska) had
a coverage rate of 88.0 percent. See
www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/samplesize-and-data-quality/coverage-rates/index.php.
These figures indicate that Puerto Rico is an outlier.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70028
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
programs, and we have revised
§ 668.601(b) to exempt the Territories
and freely associated states from
application of subpart S.
Comments: Some commenters urged
the Department to exempt medical
schools from the GE program
accountability framework given the
higher levels of borrowing students
experience in those programs and the
higher earnings later associated with
those careers after physicians complete
their residencies. Similar suggestions
came from commenters to exclude law
schools from the eligibility measures
because the accreditation process
provides oversight of admission
standards, monitors faculty providing
the coursework, reviews the academic
engagement of the students, and sets
benchmarks for graduates to pass the bar
exams. These commenters believe that
the law school accrediting process
ensures students obtain long-term value
from their legal education.
Discussion: As discussed in more
detail in the Post-graduate Training
Requirements section of this preamble
which modifies the definition of the
cohort period and adds a definition of
a qualifying graduate program in
§ 668.2, these regulations already
accommodate the commenters’ concern
about medical schools, by using a longer
time horizon over which to measure
graduates’ earnings—six-years postgraduation rather than three. We do not
agree that the accreditation process by
itself provides adequate guardrails to
ensure that students are not left with
unaffordable debt or very low earnings.
This is readily apparent in the
Department’s data, showing many
accredited programs leave students with
unaffordable debt.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
requested that embedded certificates,
stackable credentials, and transfer
associate degrees be exempted from GE
determinations because these programs
are intended to combine into larger
degree programs which, for public and
nonprofit institutions, would not be
subject to the GE accountability
framework. One commenter requested
further clarification about the treatment
of certificates that are fully embedded
into a degree program, in which
students are not able to enroll in just the
certificate program. The commenter was
unsure of the extent to which a public/
not-for-profit institution would need to
report on students in a certificate
program that is both embedded in a
degree program and also available as a
stand-alone certificate program.
Discussion: The metrics used for
evaluating whether a program leads to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
gainful employment are based on
students who complete various
credentials at an institution, and if a
student completes multiple credentials,
they would typically only count in the
metrics of the highest credential they
earn. A student completing several
stackable credentials would generally be
included in the earnings and debt
cohorts of their last or highest credential
completed. Students completing a
program with intermediate credentials
may have higher program costs that
would impact the debt outcome
calculations for the program since the
debt students accumulate at the same
institution is generally all included.
We disagree that such programs
should be exempted from the GE
framework. If a student does take
several intermediate credentials before
obtaining a higher degree, then the
student’s cumulative debt and earnings
outcomes are all, appropriately,
associated with the higher credential. If
they complete an intermediate
credential but do not obtain the ultimate
intended degree, then their debt and
earnings outcomes are attributed to the
last or highest credential they obtained.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
suggested that credit-bearing non-degree
programs at public and nonprofit
institutions should be excluded from
the eligibility framework if the
institutions offering those programs also
offered certified degree programs that
used the identical CIP codes as the nondegree programs, particularly when
there was overlap in the courses offered
for the non-degree and degree programs
that shared the same CIP code.
Discussion: We do not believe a such
an exclusion is warranted. If students
separately enroll in a certificate program
at the institution, that program is a GE
program for purposes of the eligibility
framework. If students in a public or
nonprofit program take courses in these
programs but ultimately earn a
credential, then those students will not
be counted as they are not graduates of
the program.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
suggested that graduate programs not be
included in the accountability
framework because of the volatility of
graduate career paths. Other
commenters noted that doctorate
programs leading to licensure should be
excluded because the students are more
mature and should have more
experience in evaluating and selecting
educational programs. Other
commenters claimed that graduate
Federal education funds were not
included when proprietary schools were
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
approved to participate in the grant and
loan programs so there was no
congressional design to apply the
gainful employment requirement on
those programs when they were
subsequently made available to
proprietary institutions. Other
commenters drew the opposite
conclusion, that graduate programs
became eligible for student aid without
any exception to the gainful
employment requirement for degree
programs offered by for-profit
institutions. Those commenters
suggested that the higher debt levels
associated with many graduate
programs favor using the eligibility
framework to assess program earnings,
describing those graduate programs as
the highest priced, highest debt
programs in the postsecondary
educational system.
Discussion: Graduate programs
offered by for-profit institutions and
graduate non-degree programs offered
by public and nonprofit institutions are
subject to the GE program requirements
in the HEA. Given high and growing
graduate borrowing levels, which often
do not correlate highly with earnings
outcomes, the protections of the GE rule
are necessary for graduate students.
That said, we also agree that there are
some considerations, such as
postgraduation training requirements,
required before a program’s impact on
earnings can be realized that are unique
to graduate programs. We discuss those
considerations in the ‘‘Measurement of
Earnings’’ section, below.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter thanked
the Department for confirming that
comprehensive transition and
postsecondary programs are excluded
from the D/E rates and EP measures.
Discussion: We thank the commenter
for noting agreement with the exclusion
of students in these programs from the
calculation of D/E rates and EP
measures under §§ 668.403(c)(6) and
668.404(c)(6).
Changes: None.
Comments: Commenters objected to
measures where the program outcomes
in the proposed regulations would be
based on periods before those
regulations were in effect, saying it
would be unfair to sanction institutions
under the eligibility measures based
upon program and pricing decisions
that could not be undone or modified
now. These commenters claimed that
the resulting metrics would not account
for program changes made in the
intervening years and would, therefore,
not be useful to prospective students.
Commenters suggested that it would be
fairer to only use outcome measures for
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
informational purposes when the rates
were based on periods before the
regulations are in effect. Some
commenters suggested that sanctions
could not be based on retroactive
periods without more explicit
congressional authorization.
Discussion: The program information
website and eligibility determinations
based on past program performance,
even performance that predates the
effective date of the regulations, do not
present a legal impediment to these
regulations. A law is ‘‘not retroactive
merely because the facts upon which its
subsequent action depends are drawn
from a time antecedent to the
enactment.’’ 114 This principle applies
even when, as is the case with these
regulations, the statutes or regulations at
issue were not in effect during the
period being measured.115 This
principle has been confirmed in the
context of the Department’s use of
institutional cohort default rates.116 117
The courts in these matters found that
measuring the past default rates of
institutions was appropriate because the
results would not be used to undo past
eligibility, but rather, to determine
future eligibility.118 As with the
institutional cohort default rate
requirements, as long as it is a program’s
future eligibility that is being
determined using the D/E rates and EP
measure, the assessment can be based
on prior periods of time. Indeed, the
court in APSCU v. Duncan rejected this
retroactivity argument with respect to
the 2011 Prior Rule.119
Moreover, we believe that the
program information website is of
interest to current and prospective
students, even when based on historical
data, and provides helpful insight to
students when comparing and selecting
among program offerings. We further
maintain that the transparency
framework will be immediately useful
to students, prospective students,
institutions, and the public, by filtering
out low-financial-value programs and
enhancing competition among other
programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
believed it would be better to establish
the financial value transparency
114 Reynolds v. United States, 292 U.S. 443, 449
(1934).
115 Career College Ass’n v. Riley, No. 94–1214,
1994 WL 396294 (D.D.C. July 19, 1994).
116 Ass’n of Accredited Cosmetology Schools v.
Alexander, 979 F.2d 859, 860–62 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
117 Pro Schools Inc. v. Riley, 824 F. Supp. 1314
(E.D. Wis. 1993).
118 See, for example, Ass’n of Accredited
Cosmetology Schools, 979 F.2d at 865.
119 870 F. Supp. 2d at 151–52.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
framework for all institutions and not
use that information for eligibility
purposes until better data becomes
available over time to monitor the
results and assess the program
outcomes.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
that available data are not suitable to the
task of measuring gainful employment.
The Department has now over a decade
of experience assessing the quality of
program level measures of earnings and
debt outcomes and is confident that
both the earnings premium measure and
debt to earnings measure capture the
relevant dimensions of program
performance. As we discuss elsewhere
in this rule and in the NPRM, we
believe that the transparency framework
is critical, but that the GE eligibility
provisions created by this rule provide
critical additional protections for
students and taxpayers in career
training programs.
Changes: None.
Potential Impacts
Comments: Some commenters
suggested some contradiction in policy
measures like the transparency and GE
accountability provisions in the rule
that could discourage students from
public service careers while also
rewarding public service through loan
forgiveness at a later career point.
Commenters also recommended
excluding public service educational
programs whose graduates would
qualify for Public Service Loan
Forgiveness to avoid decreasing the
number of graduates in fields that are
already experiencing supply constraints.
Discussion: As noted elsewhere, the
goal of these regulations is to ensure
programs are not leaving students with
unaffordable debt or with no
enhancement to their earnings.
Programs should ensure their students’
do not need to borrow excessively,
regardless of what repayment options
may be available to them based on their
career choices after graduating. In most
cases, we expect that programs will
serve both students likely to pursue
public sector employment and students
who will not enter the public sector,
and all students should be protected
from unaffordable levels of debt.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
expressed concern that the GE program
accountability framework would lead to
the closure of smaller colleges and
vocational schools serving students who
may not thrive in traditional university
settings. One of these commenters
viewed the measures as discrimination
against students who do not want a
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70029
traditional college education and who
want to work in the service industries.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with the commenters. The calculation
and application of the D/E measure and
the EP measure do not vary based upon
the size of the institution or the type of
learning environment it provides in its
programs. They only vary to ensure
there are sufficient students in the data
to calculate results. The effects of the
rule are driven by whether a program
provides sufficient financial value, and
there are many small institutions whose
programs pass these metrics as well as
larger institutions that see their
programs fail. We also disagree that the
rules discriminate based upon the type
of postsecondary experience sought by
students. There are significant numbers
of all types of programs that pass the GE
measures as shown in the RIA. The
commenters did not provide any
evidence as to how the non-traditional
nature of the program could be expected
to affect either the amount of debt
students take on or their earnings.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter claimed
that the regulations would lead to
students shifting from larger institutions
to smaller institutions that do not
participate in title IV, HEA programs.
The commenter further claimed that
non-participating programs do not need
to maintain any basic standards and
therefore students will not be protected
if they attend those schools.
Several other commenters also
suggested that students dependent upon
Federal student aid could be harmed if
some institutions continued to offer
programs that lost eligibility to students
that could afford them without Federal
student aid. Some commenters noted
that programs at risk of losing Federal
student aid might also lose access to
State grants and further erode student
access to some lower earnings programs.
Discussion: The Department expects
one outcome of these regulations will be
an enrollment shift from low-financialvalue to high-financial-value programs
or, in some cases, away from lowfinancial-value postsecondary programs
to non-enrollment. It is also possible
that some students will shift from lowfinancial-value postsecondary programs
to programs where they cannot obtain
title IV, HEA aid, though such transfers
will likely be limited by the lack of
Federal aid available to students at such
programs. There is limited information
about the outcomes of students at nonparticipating programs, making it
difficult to estimate the consequences of
such transfers (although research cited
in the RIA finds that among
cosmetology programs, non-
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70030
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
participating programs have lower
prices but similar licensure passage
rates). However, the Department
believes that the rule will lead to net
benefits, as we expect that the
availability of higher quality
information about program-level student
outcomes, and the loss of title IV, HEA
eligibility by low value GE programs,
will result in fewer defaults, higher
earnings for students, and additional tax
revenue for Federal, State, and local
governments.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter argued
that, in the NPRM, the Department
promoted a false narrative that higher
education is not a pathway to success
for students and their families. This
commenter worried that if we enact
these rules, there will not be students
qualified to fulfill workforce needs.
Discussion: The Department
disagrees. As we noted in the NPRM,
most postsecondary programs provide
benefits to students in the form of
higher wages that help them repay any
loans they may have borrowed to attend
the program.120 We believe that all
students benefit from the availability of
information about a program’s debt and
earnings outcomes provided under the
financial value transparency framework.
Moreover, by only providing title IV,
HEA funding to GE programs that meet
the GE eligibility requirements, the
Department is encouraging students to
pursue career pathways in higher
education that will result in them being
gainfully employed. It will provide
students a pathway to success within
higher education that does not leave
them unable to pay their debt or with
earnings no greater than a comparable
high school graduate.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters
expressed that, by denying title IV, HEA
eligibility to failing GE programs, the GE
regulations will limit school choice for
students. These commenters argued that
students should choose where to attend
school without being deterred by a lack
of funding. Commenters asserted that it
is unfair to limit student choices for
educational programs by using the GE
program accountability framework, and
that doing so will perpetuate an uneven
playing field for the for-profit
institutions. One commenter opined
that the GE program accountability
framework will drive up the cost of
higher education because it will reduce
the number of schools available and
decrease competition.
Commenters suggested that a better
approach would be to provide more
120 88
FR 32300, 32306 (May 19, 2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
guidance and accept alternate measures
of success for a GE program, such as
graduation and placement rates, or
establish more stringent requirements
for those institutions with higher cohort
default rates. Commenters asserted that
graduation rates reported by the
National Center for Educational
Statistics (NCES) show that proprietary
schools have higher graduation rates for
first-time, full-time students for twoyear programs of over 60 percent,
compared to 52 percent for private
nonprofits and 29 percent for public
institutions.
Discussion: The Department
disagrees. By implementing the GE
program accountability framework, the
Department is protecting students from
attending programs that leave students
with unaffordable debt or earnings not
more than comparable high school
graduates. As explained further above,
we do not believe such programs meet
the HEA requirements for participating
in title IV, HEA as GE programs. Those
programs must prepare students for
gainful employment in a recognized
occupation or profession, and the
accountability framework adopted here
is designed to implement the applicable
statutory provisions with clear and
administrable rules that test for earnings
enhancements and affordable debt. In
addition, the GE program accountability
framework, rather than limiting school
choice, will improve the choices
available to students and, at the same
time, protect the interests of taxpayers
and the Federal Government.
For several reasons, the Department
does not agree that the rule will cause
increases in tuition by reducing the
number of educational options available
to students. The GE accountability
provisions of the rule, in part, target
programs with high debt relative to
earnings. We expect the primary
impacts of the rule to be (1) encouraging
institutions with high D/E programs to
reduce their tuition or arrange for their
students to receive greater grant support
to reduce borrowing, and (2) making
ineligible for participation in title IV,
HEA student aid those GE programs that
have particularly high costs to students,
leaving more affordable options in other
programs with better outcome measures.
More generally, the fact that so much
variation in debt exists across programs
that are in similar fields with similar
earnings levels suggests strongly that
competition across such programs for
students may play a limited role in
keeping tuition low.
We expect that programs that are low
performing under the framework will
take steps to improve, to avoid a loss of
title IV, HEA eligibility. As shown in the
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
RIA (see Tables 4.25 and 4.26), most
students who enroll in a GE program
projected to fail the D/E rates or EP
measure have better options available to
them in a similar field nearby or,
possibly, at the same institution. On
average, these alternative options leave
graduates with 43 percent higher
earnings and 21 percent less debt.121
Accordingly, rather than restricting the
educational and professional choices of
those considering career-focused
programs and causing cost increases due
to reduced competition, we believe the
GE program accountability framework
will lead to overall improvement in the
career program options available to
students and in the financial outcomes
for those students.
Nor has the Department ignored the
value of student choice. The financial
value transparency framework will
provide average education debt and
earnings information about degree
programs offered at nonprofit and
public institutions to help students and
families make informed choices, while
the GE program accountability
framework will ensure that GE programs
are meeting eligibility thresholds in
accord with applicable statutes. Again,
the GE program accountability
framework is based on the GE
provisions of the HEA that differentiate
between career training programs and
other eligible programs by conditioning
the title IV eligibility of career training
programs on their meeting the gainful
employment requirement. We believe it
is appropriate to set eligibility
thresholds for these programs to ensure
they meet the HEA requirements, and
that these thresholds will promote better
outcomes for students and encourage
institutions to improve the outcome
measures for marginal programs. By
providing equivalent information about
programs not subject to the GE
eligibility requirements, the financial
value transparency framework will
promote better comparisons of
comparable programs offered at
different institutions for students
looking at multiple institutions.
We also disagree with suggestions by
commenters to adopt measures such as
graduation or placement rates instead of
the D/E rates and EP measures or to
create stronger conditions around cohort
default rates. While we agree that
graduation rates are an important piece
of information, they are insufficient for
ensuring that programs prepare students
for gainful employment in a recognized
occupation. The measures in the GE
121 See the section in the RIA titled ‘‘Alternative
Options Exist for Students to Enroll in High-Value
Programs.’’
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
program accountability framework are
based upon students who graduate and
received title IV, HEA aid, and the data
included in the NPRM and this final
rule show that even when looking only
at graduates, there are too many
programs that leave students in a
situation where they are no better off
than if they had never attended
postsecondary education or they have
debt that they cannot afford to repay.
Restricting our analysis to graduation
rates would overlook these concerning
results. Broadly, we do not view a high
completion rate as evidence that a
program prepares its students for gainful
employment if most graduates struggle
in the labor market or cannot afford
their debt.
Placement rates exhibit similar
shortfalls. While they can be useful
indicators of results, not every program
is directly tied to a specific set of
occupations and, thus, such measures
may not always be appropriate.
Moreover, calculating placement rates is
burdensome and time consuming for
institutions compared to the GE
program accountability metrics. Further,
we do not believe that job placement is
proof that a program is preparing
students for gainful employment in a
recognized occupation, if graduate
earnings are no better than if they had
never attended postsecondary education
or if they nonetheless have debts they
cannot afford.
Regarding default rates, the
Department is concerned about the
negative effects of default on borrowers,
so we are taking steps to lessen the
likelihood of default, even if the
institution does nothing to improve its
offerings. For instance, in the final rule
improving income-driven repayment,122
we instituted regulatory provisions that
would allow for the automatic
enrollment into income-driven
repayment of borrowers who go at least
75 days without making their scheduled
payment and who have granted us the
approval for the disclosure of their
Federal tax information from the IRS.
We have also created the new Saving on
a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan,
which increases the amount of income
protected from payments, which will
give more at-risk borrowers a $0
payment and prevent many from
defaulting. While these provisions
provide critical benefits for borrowers,
they underscore the importance of
additional measures of program
outcomes beyond default rates to assess
whether programs are preparing
students for gainful employment.
Changes: None.
122 88
FR 43820 (July 10, 2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Demographics and Outcomes
Comments: Many commenters raised
concerns about how the demographics
of students at programs could lead to
unfairness in the calculation of earnings
or debt at programs with diverse student
bodies. For example, several
commenters raised the issue of wage
discrimination that affects the earnings
of racial and ethnic minority students
and women. Because of this labor
market discrimination, some
commenters argued that programs that
serve widely discriminated-against
students and communities will be
disadvantaged in the calculation of
earnings relative to programs that serve
fewer students from communities facing
discrimination. Several commenters
also claimed that the high school
earnings threshold reflects in large part
the gender composition of the high
school completer workforce in each
State, which, if largely male, may not be
an appropriate comparator for
postsecondary programs that
predominantly graduate women. Many
commenters argued that schools that
educate a large population of lowincome or low-wealth students will
have higher debt-to-earnings ratios,
since such students are more likely to
borrow. Another commenter suggested
that the Department should apply a
‘‘Pell Premium’’ to institutions with
high populations of low-wealth
students. However, several commenters
also suggested that institutions play a
strong role in the job opportunities their
graduates can obtain, even if student
demographics can have some role in the
outcomes across programs.
Discussion: We agree that systemic
discrimination may affect the need for
some groups of students to borrow and
may affect their earnings after
graduation. Still, we do not believe that
the demographic makeup of a program’s
students sufficiently influences whether
the program meets this final rule’s
minimal thresholds for financial value
such that the Department should alter or
abandon the regulations that we adopt
here.
The Department addresses this
concern in the RIA, the basic points of
which we reiterate and discuss here. In
the RIA, the Department provides
evidence indicating that programs and
institutions play an important causal
role in determining student outcomes,
more so than student demographics. We
first present regression analysis (Tables
4.22 and 4.23) showing that institutional
and program factors (credential level,
control, institution fixed effects) explain
a great deal of the variation in program
outcomes. Adding student
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70031
demographics on top of these variables
does not explain much additional
variation in outcome (as measured by
increase in R-squared) (Tables 4.22–
4.23). Second, we show that programlevel differences in students’ family
income background is only modestly
correlated with the EP measure, and that
there are many programs that pass at
every level of family income (Figure
4.3). The same is true among programs
with similar gender and racial
composition (Table 4.24). Third,
evidence from our compliance oversight
activities indicates that some
institutions aggressively recruit women
or students of color into programs of
substandard quality and claim that the
resulting poor outcomes are because of
the alleged ‘‘access’’ the program
provides to their students. Finally, the
closure of a poor-performing program is
not likely to affect students’ access to a
similar program with better outcomes.
More than 90 percent of students have
at least one transfer option within the
same two-digit CIP code, credential
level, and geographic area (Table 4.25).
We also note that the research literature
on this topic likewise concludes that
factors related to institutions and
programs are stronger predictors of
student outcomes than the demographic
characteristics of students. On that
score, please consult the numerous
citations to this literature in the ‘‘Need
for Regulatory Action’’ section of the
RIA.
Furthermore, in designing the D/E
rates and EP measures, the Department
included several features to limit the
influence of student demographics on
these financial value metrics. In the
measurement of program debt under
§ 668.401(b)(1)(i), for example, we cap
individual student borrowing at the
direct costs charged by the program
excluding borrowing for living costs.
Low-income students tend to borrow
more for non-tuition and fee expenses
than do high-income students; therefore,
this cap at the total cost for tuition, fees,
and books should mitigate concerns that
programs will be penalized for enrolling
large numbers of low-income
students.123 Further, an analysis by New
America suggests that capping debt at
the total cost for tuition, fees, and books
will have a particularly large impact for
programs at Historically Black Colleges
and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic
Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and
Universities, and other Minority Serving
123 See, for example, Dancy, Kim & Barrett, Ben
(2018). Living on Credit? An Overview of Student
Borrowing for Non-Tuition Expenses. New America
(https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/
reports/living-credit/).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70032
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Institutions (MSIs), in terms of
increasing the number of programs at
these institutions that pass the
metrics.124
Even using the data in the 2022 PPD,
which does not have that cap applied
(since the cap will rely on institutionlevel reporting not yet available to the
Department), programs with small
proportions of students who receive Pell
Grants (which proxies for
socioeconomic status) have median
student debt levels that are similar to
programs serving large shares of Pell
students. In Figure 1.1, we show the
relationship between median program
debt and the share of Pell students using
the PPD. As the share of Pell students
increases (moving from left to right on
the graph), the average median program
debt does not increase (the average of
the individual programs’ median debt
levels is shown in the dark line); rather,
it remains similar. To illustrate that
institutions do influence borrowing
levels, in the same figure we show the
average median debt levels for
institutions with higher tuition levels
(the highest quartile of tuition, with the
average depicted by the dotted line)
versus those with lower levels of tuition
(those in the lowest quartile of tuition,
depicted by the dashed line). The figure
shows that tuition levels affect
borrowing levels substantially, whereas
the family income background (proxied
by the percent of student receiving Pell
grants) of students does not.
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
Figure 1.1: Median debt and Pell receipt among Bachelor of Arts
(BA) programs
Relationship Between the Share of Students in a Program Who Receive Pell and Median Debt Levels
For All Bacnelor's Degree Programs in the Program Perfonnance Data (PPD)
50,000
40,000
:1S
(I)
0
!
30,000
.i
20,000
l
,:J
(I)
:;
10,000
0
0
2015-2017 Average ofIndicator for Student Pell forthis qedential
Relationship~ Pell.and Debt
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
BILLING CODE 4000–01–C
•• •• • HighestTuition Quartile
- · All Tuition Levels
Related to potential issues raised
about differences in the gender
compositions of programs and high
school graduates in the State, adjusting
thresholds poses several challenges,
including practical feasibility. As
described in more detail below,
attempting to create program-specific
metrics would be very complex and lead
to inconsistent standards across
programs. As well, standards might
need to continually change as the
gender composition of programs change,
potentially adding undesirable volatility
to program outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comments: Working from concerns
about the role of demographics in the
comparison of metrics across programs,
commenters suggested a number of
potential solutions. One commenter
suggested that the earnings information
provided on the Department’s program
information website should note salary
discrepancies by gender and race. One
commenter recommended the
Department disaggregate high school
earnings data by demographic
characteristics when an institution can
demonstrate a predominate
demographic or population being served
by its programs or field of study. A few
other commenters, relying on an
estimate of return on investment from a
think tank analysis,125 suggested
adjusting the threshold down by 15
percent to account for variances in
earnings levels due to demographic
differences. A few commenters
suggested using demographic
adjustments for labor market
124 See Caldwell, Tia & Garza, Roxanne (2023).
Previous Projections Overestimated Gainful
Employment Failures: Almost All HBCUs & MSI
Graduate Programs Pass. New America (https://
www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/
ge-failures-overestimated/).
125 The referenced report is available here:
https://freopp.org/accountable-or-not-evaluating-
the-biden-administrations-proposed-gainfulemployment-framework-a49231683263.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ER10OC23.000
LowestTuition Quartile
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
discrimination, similar to those used in
the Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC)
methodology for estimating the return
on investment (ROI) for college
enrollment.
Discussion: We appreciate the
suggestions provided by commenters.
For website disclosures, the Department
is interested in providing data to
students that will help them make
informed decisions and to institutions
that will help them identify and remove
the potential barriers to opportunities
for all students to achieve success. The
Department will carefully consider the
best way of providing this information
to students and institutions, including
contextual information about the
influence of factors such as race and
gender discrimination on earnings
levels, taking into account the results of
consumer testing.
Related to high school earnings, the
EP threshold is based on an estimate of
State-level median earnings of
individuals aged 25 to 34 who have only
a high school diploma or GED. Further
adjustment to this threshold, such as
using a program-specific statistical
adjustment to better match the
demographics of students completing a
given program to the composition of
high school graduates in a given State,
poses several challenges. An important
constraint on this approach is its
practical feasibility. To implement the
approach, one would need to measure
high school median earnings separately
for each demographic subgroup of
interest. If we only started with the five
race and ethnicity groups on which the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) requires reporting and added two
sex-at-birth categories, we would need
to estimate median earnings for ten
subgroups within each State. In many
States there would be too few
individuals in ACS data to produce a
reliable measure, so different groups
would need to be combined or other
methods of adjustment would need to
be employed, thereby requiring
potentially arbitrary methodological
choices. To compute a program-specific
threshold, presumably one would create
a weighted average of these subgroups,
where the weights would correspond to
the share of completers in the program.
Again, this could be quite complex and
create different standards that programs
must meet for eligibility. Especially in
small programs, changes in the
demographic composition of programs
could result in different earnings
thresholds from year to year. This could
add undesirable volatility to program
outcomes under the rule.
With respect to establishing a 15
percent variance to account for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
disadvantaged groups, we appreciate the
suggestion, but there are numerous
issues with the commenter’s
methodology that preclude a sound
basis for adjusting the rule by an
amount generated by that analysis. This
includes several self-acknowledged
reasons why the commenter’s
methodology systematically
overestimates or underestimates ROI for
different types of programs, and makes
assumptions that students’ earnings
trajectories relative to their peers do not
change over time. In addition, the
commenter’s attempt to create
counterfactual wages relies on
adjustments made on very broad
educational credential by field of study
groups that do not reflect specific
programs well.
The Department has considered
different methodologies for calculating a
median high school earnings threshold
in each State, including an option (using
only those individuals with a high
school degree working year-round) that
would have used an earnings threshold
approximately 20 percent higher.126
The BPC’s ROI model includes a
‘‘discrimination adjustment’’ based on
earnings gaps in the overall population
of college graduates. Earnings of female
graduates, and graduates from
underrepresented minority racial or
ethnic groups, are adjusted upward to
match the earnings of white male
college graduates. If applied to a
program’s earnings outcome measure,
this statistical adjustment would
misrepresent the true median earnings
of graduates from a given program by
inflating the median salary for programs
enrolling large shares of women and
underrepresented minorities. Such an
adjustment could potentially
misrepresent a student’s potential
earnings, and ability to repay their debt,
for a given program, which are
important datapoints within the
financial value transparency framework.
If applied to State-level EP thresholds of
median high school earnings, this
statistical adjustment is again likely to
cause more year-over-year uncertainty
for programs serving a demographic
population that is dissimilar from the
State-level population of high school
graduates in the labor force, due to
small n-sizes of these groups.
Finally, we note again that as shown
in Tables 4.22 and 4.23 of the RIA and
elsewhere in this rule, program
demographics do not play an outsized
role in influencing the debt and
earnings-based outcomes measured in
the final rule. In light of these factors,
126 See ‘‘Alternative Earnings Threshold’’ in the
‘‘Alternatives Considered’’ section of the RIA.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70033
we believe the methodology for setting
thresholds based on State-level high
school earnings described in this rule is
better than alternative approaches and
sets a reasonable benchmark for the
earnings outcomes of all programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
suggested that the Department should
include separate provisions for
underserved and under-resourced
institutions such as HBCUs and other
MSIs. These commenters contended that
the unique circumstances of HBCUs and
MSIs should be considered important
factors in assisting both students and
institutions. The commenters stated that
the Department can do this by providing
technical assistance to these schools
instead of loss of eligibility if programs
fail the D/E rates or EP measure, helping
to achieve compliance.
Discussion: While we are sensitive to
the additional burden associated with
implementing these regulations, we do
not believe an exception should be
made for HBCUs and other MSIs. As for
the financial value transparency
framework and the acknowledgment
provisions therein, we believe the
students at HBCUs and other MSIs are
just as deserving of access to useful and
comparable information about
programs, including information that
may be necessary to prevent them from
accumulating unaffordable debt. As for
the GE program accountability
framework, we similarly believe that
consumer protection and providing
information to highlight the value of
programs is important for all students
who attend GE programs. As stated
above, we maintain that any burden on
institutions to meet the reporting
requirements is outweighed by the
benefits of the transparency and
accountability frameworks of the
regulations to students, prospective
students, their families, taxpayers, and
the public at large.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters
expressed additional concerns about the
impact of the rules on institutions that
educate large numbers of low-income
and minority students. For example,
several commenters equated the student
acknowledgment requirements to public
shaming of institutions that educate
such students. Several other
commenters contended that, as a result
of the rules, institutions will
discriminate against students with
lower incomes who do not have the
capacity to pay for their program with
their own money. These commenters
believed that schools are likely to admit
students who can be persuaded to
borrow private student loans, who do
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70034
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
not require accommodations for
disabilities, and who enroll in training
for fields that are likely to result in
higher incomes. This means, according
to these commenters, that women,
people of color, people with disabilities,
and LGBTQ+ individuals will be less
likely to gain access to these higher
education programs.
Discussion: We do not agree that the
student acknowledgment requirements
constitute a public shaming of
institutions that serve low-income and
minority students. The
acknowledgments are delivered to the
Department through its website, and
they are obtained from individual
students with respect to particular
programs—more specifically, title IV
eligible programs that do not lead to an
undergraduate degree and that are
associated with high debt burden, as
well as GE programs that are at risk of
losing title IV, HEA eligibility based on
measures of high debt burden or no
enhanced earnings. The
acknowledgments are not obtained from
the public at large nor are they
associated with the institution as a
whole. Moreover, as further discussed
in response to a comment above, our
analysis of the PPD shows that programs
with small proportions of students who
receive Pell Grants (which proxies for
socioeconomic status) have similar
median student debt as programs
serving large shares of Pell students.
Moreover, the Department believes
that the GE program accountability
framework will help protect all
individuals including women, people of
color, people with disabilities, and
LGBTQ+ individuals from entering
programs that do not prepare students
for gainful employment. The lack of title
IV, HEA aid at such programs will help
students to avoid failing GE programs,
which will ultimately help maximize
their educational investment. To help
prevent institutions from encouraging
students to substitute private loans for
Federal loans, the D/E rates measure
counts all student borrowing including
institutional and private loans in the
median debt measure. In effect, then,
institutions do not receive an advantage
on that metric for concentrating on
students with access to private lending,
which was a matter of concern to some
commenters.
Changes: None.
Alternative Accountability Metrics
Comments: One commenter proposed
that the Department use repayment rates
as an alternative accountability metric
to monitor debt affordability. This
commenter noted that in their analysis
of College Scorecard data, they
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
identified many online schools where
less than 20 percent of borrowers make
any progress in lowering their loan
principal; however, these programs pass
the D/E rates and EP metrics. This
commenter recommended penalties for
programs where many students do not
make progress paying down their
principal. Specifically, the commenter
suggested the Department consider
mandatory disbursement delays,
mandatory reduced loan maximums
(e.g., 20 percent less annual loan
maximums), or limiting borrowing for
one category of costs.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that measuring the realized repayment
rates of borrower cohorts from particular
programs may provide valuable
information on borrower outcomes. As
provided in § 668.43(d)(1)(vii), through
the program information website, we
will provide the loan repayment rate for
students or graduates who entered
repayment on Direct Loans. The
Department currently lacks sufficient
evidence, however, to design
accountability thresholds that would tie
eligibility to whether a program’s
repayment rate exceeded a particular
threshold.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
suggested that we assess programs based
on a tuition-to-earnings ratio rather than
a debt-to-earnings ratio. These
commenters believed this approach
would treat programs with similar
prices and earnings outcomes
comparably, regardless of the share of
students with debt.
Discussion: We believe it is
reasonable to consider whether
students’ labor market outcomes justify
the amount they borrow, as well as any
educational expenses they pay using
other funds. This rule will generate new
program-level data that captures the
total debt students borrow to attend
programs, which will provide students
with relevant information about
program outcomes. Since no data on
program-level tuition exists, we are not
able to calculate a tuition-to-earnings
ratio. We focus instead on the direct
costs to attend a program that students
finance with student loans. This
approach reflects the Department’s
natural interest in Federal loans being
repaid, and its concerns that excessive
borrowing to attend postsecondary
education may lead to financial
consequences including default that
undermine the goals of title IV, HEA
programs in promoting economic
mobility.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted
that nursing education is composed of
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
various programs and specializations
ranging from practical nursing degrees
to doctoral degrees. The current GE
metrics may not differentiate between
the levels of nursing education and
varying incomes. For example, the
employment outcomes and debt-toearnings ratio for a nursing assistant
program may differ significantly from
those of a four-year Bachelor of Science
in nursing program. According to the
commenter, incomes vary widely in
individual fields in the nursing
profession and a rigid formulaic
measure may result in unfair and
inconsistent outcomes. The commenter
further stated that GE metrics prioritize
financial indicators, such as earnings
and debt, while overlooking other
valuable outcomes specific to nursing.
The commenter contended that the
Department should consider factors like
patient outcomes, job satisfaction, and
advancement opportunities. The
commenter believed that these aspects
are also important in assessing the
overall quality and value of nursing
programs.
Discussion: The EP and D/E metrics
are measured for programs that are
defined based on credential level and
CIP codes. We expect these measures
will indeed differentiate between
programs that train nurse assistants and
BS programs in nursing, unless the BS
program graduates end up finding
employment as nurse assistants.
Regardless, the GE measures are meant
to determine whether graduates of
career training programs leave their
students with enhanced earnings or
affordable debt. These are minimum
standards to ensure students are not
financially harmed by completing an
education program. The additional
factors specified by the commenter are
important but not measured by or
reported to the Department Therefore,
we are unable to report on these
measures.
Changes: None.
Other Comments
Comments: A commenter expressed
concern that if we promulgate these GE
regulations, there is nothing to stop the
Department from enacting more
restrictive metrics for all programs.
Discussion: Although D/E rates and
the EP measure will be calculated for
informational purposes for all programs,
we note that the use of the D/E rates and
EP measures in this final rule to
determine continuing title IV, HEA
eligibility for GE programs is pursuant
to the statutory authority specific to
those programs.
Changes: None.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Comments: Several commenters noted
that proprietary schools provide value
and economic strength to the country
even though they do not receive the
State and Federal support provided to
public and nonprofit institutions that
subsidize the education costs for
students. The commenters said that
students taking programs at trade
schools should have the same
opportunities to obtain Federal loans as
students attending other institutions of
higher education. Commenters also
questioned whether programs offered at
public and nonprofit institutions in
fields such as performing arts,
education, leisure, and hospitality
provided gainful employment compared
to the lower program costs and many
jobs available to graduates from
cosmetology programs.
Discussion: We agree that many
factors go into program costs and postgraduate earnings for the choices
students make when selecting
institutions, programs, and careers. The
regulations measure education debt and
earnings for the student graduates, and
the education debt itself is tied to the
program costs that might or might not be
subsidized from other sources. Other
factors such as program length also
impact those measures. Regardless of
those factors, the average education debt
for a program is relevant because it
reflects the direct obligation that the
student is expected to pay, while the
average earnings provides some measure
of the graduate’s ability to do so.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters noted
that many graduates of the shorter
programs offered at proprietary schools
can get licensed in professions with
work that provides those graduates and
society with immediate benefits. One
commenter acknowledged that some forprofit beauty schools may
underperform, but surmised that
students take cosmetology programs
with different goals, plans and
ambitions, such as working part-time
instead of full time. A number of
commenters criticized the eligibility
outcome measures as being targeted to
cosmetology programs and asserted that
the proposed regulations are intended to
drive student enrollments away from
cosmetology programs and into other
fields such as medical and dental.
Commenters strongly objected to
measures where Department estimates
show the regulations could eliminate
two-thirds of the cosmetology programs
offered at proprietary institutions. Some
commenters noted that institutions have
little voice in factors that may be
reflected in the lower earnings for
cosmetology programs such as part time
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
work or unreported income. Some
commenters cautioned that programs
failing the earnings tests may close and
students may face limited choices to
enroll in more expensive degree
programs or find comparable
cosmetology programs in less
convenient locations. Other commenters
said that many cosmetology graduates
seeking full time careers easily get wellpaying jobs even before they develop
dedicated clientele, while others may do
little beyond maintaining their licenses.
Discussion: These measures for debt
and earnings are comparable for all
programs under the transparency
framework and eligibility measures. In
general, this means that to keep the
education debt affordable for the
graduates, programs with lower earnings
will have lower costs. Graduates
choosing not to work full-time or
providing volunteer services in addition
to working part-time still are faced with
the obligation to repay the education
debt associated with their program. The
regulations provide the average
education debt and average earnings for
program graduates without adjustments
for any part-time work, and students
should consider that information when
evaluating career options. Institutions
offering GE programs that do not meet
the eligibility thresholds may search for
better options for their students that
effectively reduce the education loan
debt or lead to better earnings outcomes.
A more detailed discussion about
unreported income from cosmetology
program graduates is addressed
separately in the ‘‘Tipped Income’’
sections here and in the NPRM.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
suggested earnings outcomes could be
impacted due to student athletes who
might underperform in academic
engagement, impact retention and
graduation rates, and not be gainfully
employed.
Discussion: The Department has no
information that suggests the
commenters’ assertions that student
athletes are likely to have lower
academic engagement and thus lower
earnings might be correct. The metrics
of the rule are based on students that
complete a program, however, so the
commenters’ concerns about retention
and completion are not likely to be
relevant. Regardless, the Department
expects institutions to serve all of its
students well and to meet the minimal
standards set by the rule.
Changes: None.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70035
Definitions—§ 668.2
General Comments
Comments: Several commenters
stated that the definitions are unclear
and do not adequately define terms in
ways that can be operationalized by
institutions. Commenters contended
that previous iterations of the GE rule
have shown that many definitions are so
confusing that implementation for
schools became overwhelming. These
were general assertions, and no
examples were given to the extent
comments addressed specific
definitions, they are addressed in the
corresponding section.
Discussion: We believe the definitions
are clear. We have taken care to define
terms precisely in this final rule and do
not anticipate widespread confusion. In
addition, as we did when issuing the
2014 Prior Rule, we will again provide
clear guidance and training to assist
postsecondary institutions in complying
with the new regulations.
Changes: None.
Classification of Instructional Program
(CIP) Code
Comments: Many commenters
asserted that the proposed regulation’s
definition of the CIP Code to consist of
six-digits is not appropriate for the
purposes of the transparency and
accountability regulations. Commenters
offered several at times conflicting
reasons for using alternative
approaches. One commenter noted that
the six-digit CIP code does not
adequately distinguish among different
levels of program success at different
locations of the institution. Another
commenter cautioned that the four-digit
CIP code captured several different sixdigit programs offered at a school, and
that if the program defined at a fourdigit CIP level failed then all the
programs at the school would fail and
the school might need to close.
On the other hand, other commenters
suggested the definition of a CIP code
should consist of four-digits to increase
the number of students covered by
metrics under the rule, or alternatively
to use the six-digit CIP but to ‘‘roll-up’’
programs to the four-digit level when
doing so would avoid too few students
at the six-digit level programs. Some
commenters noted that few four-digit
programs had multiple six-digit
programs within them, and in those
cases, the different six-digit programs
rarely had different financial value
outcomes. This, they said, suggested
there would be little granularity lost in
using the four-digit CIP level to define
programs, and would increase coverage
of the rates. Finally, one commenter
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70036
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
expressed appreciation for the
Department’s decision to use 6-digit CIP
codes and requested the Department to
re-release the dataset included with the
NPRM with a 6-digit CIP code versus
the currently published 4-digit CIP code
data to aid in understanding
institutions’ performance with these
new measures.
Discussion: We appreciate
commenters’ views on both sides of this
issue. There is a tradeoff between
granularity of how specifically
programs’ performances are measured,
and the coverage of metrics due to
minimum n-size restrictions discussed
elsewhere. As we note in the RIA, we
estimate that metrics using a 6-digit CIP
with the 4-year completion cohort rollup for programs with few completers
over 2 years will be available for
programs enrolling over 80 percent of
title IV, HEA recipients. While also
rolling up programs to the four-digit
level could allow even greater coverage,
the potential gains are small, and it is
possible that some programs (measured
at the six-digit level) that should be
deemed passing are combined with
larger failing programs and end up
failing. We put more weight on avoiding
an inappropriate sanction on a passing
program, and so prefer to define
programs at the six-digit level.
Although the Department considered
treating each additional location
offering the same combination of sixdigit CIP code and credential level as a
separate program, we determined that
doing so would further reduce the
number of programs with a sufficient
number of completers to be evaluated,
and the gains in granular coverage may
not be justified. This is, in part, due to
an added dimension of complexity that
not all locations are well aligned with
the organizational units of institutions
with which students engage in pursuing
an education, and the mapping between
locations and such units differs widely
across States. The Department might
revisit the issue of program
classification in the future, for example
to assess student outcomes more
granularly across different campuses in
some State systems or in online
programs.
The Department does not anticipate
being able to rerelease the information
published with the NPRM at the sixdigit CIP level due to constraints in our
ability to obtain earnings data.
Changes: None.
Office of Postsecondary Education
Identification (OPEID) Code Level
Comments: A few commenters argued
that, in defining a ‘‘program’’, the
Department should use the eight-digit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Office of Postsecondary Education
identification number (OPEID) since it
because it more granularly identifies the
institution where a student receives an
education. The commenter asserted that
disaggregated data would afford
students a clearer understanding of the
quality of their specific institution.
Also, the commenter stated that
accreditors and State regulators view
institutions with distinct 8-digit OPEID
numbers separately and so using the 8digit OPEID would align data across the
triad.
Discussion: The Department agrees
with these commenters that it would be
desirable to be able to track program
performance at separate locations of
colleges with multiple locations rather
than reporting them together under a
single six-digit OPEID campus.
Currently, however, eight-digit OPEID
locations do not correspond neatly to
the separate components of an
institution that students interact with to
participate in their education programs.
Moreover, the Department must balance
the competing interests of specificity of
data and having enough completers in a
cohort group to calculate rates.
Additional sub-division of completer
groups would lead to some programs
falling short of 30 students in the 4-year
cohort, resulting in rates and data being
unavailable for those programs. We
believe that variation in the same
program offered by the same institution
at different locations would be too small
to justify the loss of rates for programs
that fall short of the 30 completer n-size
requirement.
Changes: None.
calculated. For this purpose, the
institution must provide a certification
that a majority of its graduates pursue
completion of the required FAA
certified flight hours to work as an FAA
Certified ATP.’’
The commenter also recommended
adding another paragraph to the same
definition of ‘‘cohort period’’ that reads:
‘‘For a program whose students are
required to complete post-graduation
flight hours pursuant to the Federal
Aviation Administration standards to
qualify as an Airline Transport Pilot
(‘ATP’) and where a majority of the
graduates are pursuing an FAA ATP
certification, the sixth, seventh, eighth,
and ninth award years prior to the
award year for which the most recent
data are available from the Federal
agency with earnings data at the time
the D/E rates and earnings threshold
measure are calculated. For this
purpose, the institution must provide a
certification that a majority of its
graduates pursue completion of the
required FAA certified flight hours to
work as an FAA Certified ATP.’’
Discussion: The Department declines
to add the proposed language. We are
committed to reviewing our own
internal data and processes to collect,
analyze, and make program eligibility
determinations based on the soundest
data available to us. We are concerned
that providing program specific carveouts that have not been evaluated using
the Department’s internal data and
processes would cause the GE metrics to
be inconsistent and ineffective.
Changes: None.
Cohort Period
Comments: One commenter stated
that, for programs that prepare pilots,
student outcomes should be measured
under the GE regulations after students
have completed the credential and
worked for the airlines at least 2 to 3
years. The commenter noted that the
proposed GE outcomes measures could
negatively impact flight schools.
The commenter proposed adding a
new paragraph to the definition of
‘‘cohort period’’ that reads: ‘‘For a
program whose students are required to
complete post-graduation flight hours
pursuant to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) standards to
qualify as an Airline Transport Pilot
(ATP) and where a majority of the
graduates are pursuing an FAA ATP
certification, the sixth and seventh
award years prior to the award year for
which the most recent data are available
from the Federal agency with earnings
data at the time the D/E rates and
earnings threshold measure are
Earnings Threshold
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Comments: None.
Discussion: The proposed definition
of ‘‘earnings threshold’’ referred to a
‘‘Federal agency with earnings data’’ as
the basis for determining median
earnings for purposes of calculating the
earnings threshold, however our
proposed description of the provision in
explained that ‘‘[u]sing data from the
U.S. Census Bureau, the Department
would also calculate an earnings
threshold. . . .’’ 127
Change: We have clarified the
definition of ‘‘earnings threshold’’ to
provide that median earnings are
determined based on data from the
Census Bureau.
Institutional Grants and Scholarships
Comments: One commenter stated
that the definition is not grammatically
correct and should be improved through
technical, non-substantive edits.
127 88
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
FR 32300, 32332 (May 19, 2023).
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Discussion: The Department agrees
with the commenter.
Changes: The Department has
updated the definition to read:
‘‘Assistance that the institution or its
affiliate controls or directs to reduce or
offset the original amount of a student’s
institutional costs and that does not
have to be repaid. Typically, an
institutional grant or scholarship
includes a grant, scholarship,
fellowship, discount, or fee waiver.’’
Student
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Comments: Several commenters
believed that defining ‘‘student,’’ for
purposes of these regulations, to include
only title IV, HEA recipients, would
undermine the quality of data that the
Department would use to calculate the
D/E rates and EP measures for programs
with significant numbers of students
who did not receive Federal student aid.
One commenter proposed to expand the
definition of ‘‘student’’ to include
graduates who have not received any
title IV, HEA assistance for enrolling in
a program, noting that in some years, 10
to 20 percent of the commenter’s
institution’s graduates do not receive
title IV, HEA funds. The commenter
contended that it is unfair that a
measure based on graduates’ median
debt excludes graduates who did not
receive title IV, HEA assistance. One
commenter suggested that, given the
reporting proposed, logistical hurdles in
adding these graduates to the cohorts
are easily overcome.
Discussion: These rules provide a
framework to provide financial value
transparency information to students
and to determine the eligibility for
students to receive Federal student aid
at career training programs. It is
reasonable to base this eligibility on
measures of the outcomes of students
who receive that aid. Similarly, for nonGE programs the Department seeks to
provide relevant information to students
regarding the outcomes of programs for
students receiving title IV, HEA
assistance. This will help students who
need to borrow to attend non-GE
programs to make an informed decision
and, where applicable, hold GE
programs accountable to increased
oversight and guardrails.
Changes: None.
Title IV Loan
Comments: One commenter
recommended that the Department omit
the ‘‘title IV loan’’ definition or, if the
Department believes that it is crucial to
define the term for these regulations,
use the existing defined term of ‘‘Direct
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Loan Program loan’’ at § 668.2(b).128 The
commenter contended that the proposed
definition is incomplete and not aligned
with actual statutory provisions, which
could be misleading and confusing. The
commenter noted that, although new
Federal Family Education Loan Program
(FFELP) and Federal Perkins (Perkins)
Loan Program loans are no longer being
originated, these loans still exist and
should not be excluded from the
definition of ‘‘title IV loan.’’ The
commenter cited, as examples,
§§ 668.403(e)(1) and 668.404(c)(1), in
which the Department refers to ‘‘title IV
loans’’ as including Perkins and FFELP.
Discussion: The Department agrees
with the commenter. We can rely on the
definition of Direct Loan Program loan
in preexisting regulations, and we agree
that, to avoid confusion, it is helpful to
use consistent terminology in our
regulations.
Changes: The Department has revised
references to ‘‘title IV loan’’ to ‘‘Direct
Loan Program’’ loan throughout the
final rule’s regulatory text.
Comments: One commenter suggested
that, in calculating administrative
burden, the Department should consider
the administrative burden of all the
proposed rules together, not
individually.
Discussion: The Department took
great care to analyze the impact of the
proposed regulations. The Department
has separated the GE and Financial
Value Transparency Framework topics
from the other rules covered in the
NPRM. We, therefore, updated the RIA
to reflect that, as well as to reflect
changes we made from the proposed
rules to these final rules.
Changes: None.
Measurement of Earnings
Timing of Earnings Measurement
Comments: One commenter
supported the Department’s proposal to
measure students’ earnings for the
calendar year three years after
graduation, observing that the proposed
interval will give students time to
establish normal earning levels and will
allow for meaningful comparisons of
debt and earnings outcomes between
programs.
Discussion: We thank the commenter
for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters
expressed concerns over the timing of
earnings measurement. First, many
expressed concerns that three years is
too little time from graduation to allow
128 Under 34 CFR 668.2(b), a ‘‘Direct Loan
Program loan’’ is a loan made under the William D.
Ford Federal Direct Loan Program.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70037
for earnings to grow enough to be a fair
representation of the earnings return to
pursuing a degree in their field of study.
Commenters noted that, in some cases,
fields with lower initial earnings can
end up having higher lifetime earnings.
Others believed that we should account
for the full lifetime earnings that flow
from the benefit of a degree. Some
commenters suggested that students
without family members to advise them
to consider other factors might be more
swayed by the short-term earnings
information provided as part of the
financial value transparency framework.
By contrast, others argued that this
three-year lag between when students
graduate and when their earnings are
measured is too long to fairly
characterize the current quality of the
program at the moment any sanctions
might be levied.
Discussion: Because the benefit of
some educational investments may take
time to manifest, real-time assessments
of educational program performance
face a tradeoff between allowing enough
time to pass to produce an accurate
measure of the benefits and assessing
those outcomes quickly enough that
they are likely to reflect the current
performance of a program. We agree that
trusted resources such as family
members can provide important
assistance in college decisions, and we
believe that the information produced
from this rule will aid the decision
making of students and their families.
We are not aware of evidence that
supports the argument that students
without family members on which to
rely will systematically make
differential decisions in the way
suggested by the commenter.
We believe a three-year lag in
measuring earnings, with longer periods
for programs documented to have
exceptionally high earnings growth due
to government-imposed limits on early
career earnings capacity, strikes this
balance. Data from the Census’
Postsecondary Employment Outcomes
(PSEO) project shows that earnings
levels measured shortly after graduation
are very highly correlated with longer
term measures.129 The correlations of
programs’ 1-year and 5-year postgraduation earnings measures with 10year program median earnings are 72
and 89 percent, respectively (a 3-year
earnings measure is not available in the
PSEO, but it is reasonable to expect its
correlation with longer term earnings to
be between the 1- and 5-year measures).
Moreover, according to administrative
Department data on median debt levels
129 These data are available at https://
lehd.ces.census.gov/data/pseo_experimental.html.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70038
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
for each program, programs’ median
debt levels evolve relatively slowly—the
correlation of program median debt
levels for the 2016–2017 and 2021–2022
cohorts is about 0.96. In general, then,
information on past cohorts’ debt and
earnings outcomes are likely to be
highly relevant for predicting outcomes
of future cohorts.
Changes: None.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Post-Graduate Training Requirements
Comments: Several commenters noted
that recent graduates who engage in
apprenticeships and other types of
probationary or training periods, often
required by the State before students
can practice independently, earn lower
wages in those initial years as compared
to later years. The specific programs that
commenters pointed to include clinical
psychologists; marriage and family
therapists; clinical counselors; social
workers; and veterinarians. Other
programs, especially in medicine, have
residency requirements. In other cases,
commenters noted that careers in their
field often involve graduates running
their own business, which requires time
to build out a steady clientele and
suppresses initial earnings.
One commenter suggested that, in
determining which programs should be
eligible for a longer earnings horizon,
the Department should consider
whether (1) the relevant field requires
multiyear post-degree supervision for
licensure (noting the possibility of
creating competing State and Federal
regulatory frameworks); and (2) a large
increase in the earnings of program
graduates follows licensure.
Discussion: Both the D/E rates and EP
measures are based on the earnings of
graduates after three years. For example,
for students graduating between July 1,
2018, and June 30, 2019 (the 2019 award
year), their earnings would be measured
in calendar year 2022. In most cases this
should give students enough time to
settle into stable employment, and after
that transition the Department believes
it is reasonable to expect students to be
able to meet the minimum standards of
this rule to be able to afford their debt
payments and for a gain in earnings
beyond what they might have earned in
high school to be realized.
Moreover, we note that a student’s
earnings three years after graduation
might govern their loan payments for up
to five years after the student graduates
if they enroll in income driven
repayment plans. That is between 20
and 25 percent of the full time that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
students will be required to make
payments on such plans, so the
Department has a responsibility to
taxpayers to hold institutions
accountable in providing quality
programs that produce graduates that
earn enough to repay their loans at that
point.
The Department is sympathetic to the
argument that some programs may have
lower earnings three years after
graduation due to government-imposed
post-graduate training requirements
necessary to earn a license before an
individual can practice independently.
To assess the commenters’ claims that
these programs see substantial earnings
gains just outside the measurement
window used in the rule, we used
program-level PSEO data. These
administrative data are based on
individual records that match program
graduates to their annual earnings from
the U.S. Census Bureau’s Longitudinal
Employer-Household Dynamics
program at one, five, and 10 years after
completion. The PSEO reports programlevel median earnings at these three
intervals, linked to 2-digit or 4-digit
Classification of Instructional Program
(CIP) codes for a large number of
institutions and State public higher
education systems throughout the
United States. This is the only dataset
we know of that currently includes
program-level earnings for programs
from a broad selection of institutions,
credential levels, and fields of study
with such long follow-up.
We limited the dataset to programs
and cohorts that had non-missing
median earnings at all three intervals.
We then grouped programs by
credential level and focused here on
graduate programs, where commenters
noted post-graduate training
requirements.
The PSEO data do have some
important limitations. First, they cover
a subset of States and not all sectors
within each State (e.g., in many States,
only public institutions report data). For
privacy reasons, data are not reported at
the finest CIP level. For example, the
PSEO data reports earnings for
professional doctoral programs, such as
MDs, at the 4-digit CIP level. These
programs comprise about 10 percent of
the programs that are in the data we
analyze. However, the PSEO reports
master’s and doctoral research/
scholarship degrees, which account for
about 90 percent of the graduate
programs in the data we use, at the 2digit CIP level. For many programs, 2-
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
digit CIP groups can include a wide
range of programs. Still, this is the only
dataset that allows us to measure
program-level earnings for a wide range
of programs across the country at
multiple time intervals that include
earnings outcomes at least five years
after students graduate. Ultimately, we
observe median earnings for 7,856
graduate programs for the graduating
cohorts of 2001, 2004, 2006, and 2007.
The commenters raise the concern
that some programs will have
particularly fast earnings growth after
the third year after completion,
suggesting that prior to earning their
independent license their earnings three
years after graduation were suppressed
by the government-imposed
requirement. In the PSEO data, we
estimate 3-year median earnings as the
average of the 1-year and 5-year median
earnings available in PSEO.130 Figure
1.2 below compares these estimated 3year median earnings (on the x-axis) to
the 10-year median earnings (on the yaxis), focusing on all graduate programs
with available data. The figure shows
that, in general, early career earnings are
highly correlated with later career
earnings: the correlation in the 3 vs. 10year post-graduation median earnings is
0.74. The ‘‘best-fit line’’ in the figure (fit
with a simple ordinary least-squares
regression) illustrates the estimated
linear relationship between the average
10-year measure and the estimated 3year measure. Most programs have
higher earnings when measured 10
years from graduation than 3 years after
graduation, reflecting the fact that
earnings tend to grow with experience
for most workers. While most programs
are centered around the best-fit line,
there is an obvious cluster of graduate
programs that have much higher 10-year
median earnings than would be
expected based on their 3-year earnings.
The professional programs in Medicine,
are all in the outlier group in the figure.
Within the 2-digit CIP code of ‘‘Health
Professions and Related,’’ there are
some programs within the group of
outliers, as well as programs that are not
outliers in terms of their earnings
growth. Though we do not show the
relationship here, there is no similar
group of outliers for BA programs
evident in the PSEO data.
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
130 We replicated these analyses focusing on
earnings growth from 1 year after graduation to 5
years after graduation and found qualitatively
similar results.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70039
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Figure 1.2: 3- and 10-Year Median Earnings for All Graduate
Programs, Highlighting Programs in Medicine and Health
Professions
400000
ti)
Cl
·c....C
300000
Cll
w
C
Cll
'o
a.>
200000
~
....
Cll
~ 100000
0
I
..-
0
50000
0
100000
150000
200000
250000
3-Year Median Earnings
Medicine: Professional
Health Professions: Masters and Research Doctorate
All Other
- - Best-Fit Line
c
•
Some commenters pointed to
programs that prepare students to
become mental health clinicians,
including Clinical Psychology and
Marriage and Family Counseling, which
require post-graduate work to obtain a
license. We have limited ability to
analyze these programs in the PSEO
data since the master’s and doctoral
research and scholarship programs for
these fields are lumped with other
health and psychology programs in
those broader 2-digit CIP categories. The
PSEO data does have data for Clinical,
Counseling, and Applied Psychology
professional doctorate programs in the
PSEO data, but there are only a very
small number of these programs in the
data, preventing a robust view of the
earnings growth of these programs.
Social Work is somewhat different
from the other programs in that
graduates with a master’s in Social
Work (MSW) pursue a variety of fields,
and not all of them require a clinical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
license.131 The first column of Table 1.3
below shows the number of graduates
with an MSW each year, based on an
annual census of social work programs
by the Council on Social Work
Education.132 The second column
shows the number of first-time licensing
exam takers, based on data from the
Association of Social Work Boards.133
Under the assumption that MSW
graduates take their exam three years
later, this leads to an estimate of
approximately 60 to 70 percent of
graduates taking the exam. Using a 6year cohort period for all MSW
graduates may not therefore be
appropriate.
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
131 See, for example, Salsberg et al. (2020). The
Social Work Profession: Findings from Three Years
of Surveys of New Social Workers.
132 See, for example, Council on Social Work
Education (2022). Annual Statistics on Social Work
Education in the United States.
133 See, for example, Association of Social Work
Boards (2022). 2022 ASWB Exam Pass Rate
Analysis Final Report.
In summary, there appears to be some
possibility that, similar to programs in
medicine, some other programs that
provide training to licensed mental
health professions may also generate
significant earnings growth following a
post-graduate training period. At
present, detailed data do not exist to
evaluate which groups of programs by
credential and CIP code are likely to
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
TABLE 1.3—MSW GRADUATES AND
FIRST TIME LCSW EXAM TAKERS,
BY YEAR
MSW
graduates
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
10OCR2
20,573
22,441
22,677
25,018
25,883
27,659
27,270
27,296
29,546
31,750
..................
First-time
LCSW
exam takers
9,100
9,604
10,879
12,217
13,044
14,007
16,095
16,022
17,207
16,801
20,657
ER10OC23.001
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
BILLING CODE 4000–01–C
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70040
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
have outlier earnings growth, but over
time such data will become available in
the College Scorecard. For example,
program median earnings measured five
years after completion should be
available by early 2024. One area of
complication is that the career paths of
graduates of some mental health
training programs are more diverse, and
not all graduates might seek to become
licensed.
In light of the evidence presented by
commenters and the Department’s
analyses, we adopt a data driven process
to identify qualifying graduate programs
where we will use a longer cohort
period to measure the earnings of
graduates six years, rather than three,
after they graduate. The Department
selected an initial set of these fields
based on evidence currently available to
the Department suggesting that
graduates of such programs may have
constrained earnings three years after
graduation as a result of government
imposed postgraduation training
requirements. Data in the College
Scorecard will eventually allow more
accurate assessments of which programs
experience atypically high growth in
graduates’ earnings that are potentially
due to postgraduation training
requirements. Going forward, the
Department will use these data,
combined with an information request
to the field to identify groups of
programs (at the credential level and
CIP code level) where A) state or other
government postgraduation
requirements exist that are likely to lead
to delays in program graduates being
able to practice independently; and B)
programs are outliers with regard to
their earnings growth relative to
programs at the same credential level.
The Department will use a standard
statistical procedure to determine
whether groups of programs (graduate
fields of study, defined by their
credential level and CIP codes) are
outliers with regard to their earnings
growth. The Department will use
College Scorecard measures to calculate
the percent growth in the median
earnings of program graduates between
one- (or three-) and five-years (or tenyears) postgraduation. Lastly, a
qualifying graduate program must have
at least half of its graduates obtain
licensure in a State where the
postgraduation requirements apply.
Since the rule is based on measuring the
earnings of the median graduate, this
requirement means that the student
with median level of earnings is likely
to have their earnings outcomes
influenced by the training requirement.
Changes: We modify the definition of
‘‘cohort period’’ in § 668.2 so that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
earnings for the 2-year cohort period are
measured six years after graduation for
completers in ‘‘qualifying graduate
programs,’’ rather than ‘‘a program
where students are required to complete
a medical or dental internship or
residency.’’ Similarly, we modify the
definition of ‘‘cohort period’’ so that
earnings of completers of a qualifying
graduate program for the 4-year cohort
period are measured the sixth, seventh,
eighth, and ninth award years prior to
the year for which the most recent
earnings data are available from the
Federal agency with earnings data at the
time the D/E rates and earnings
premium measure are calculated.
We then add to § 668.2 and define a
‘‘qualifying graduate program,’’ which
(a) establishes an initial list of graduate
degree fields (defined by their credential
level and CIP code) that potentially
qualify for this longer cohort period
used for earnings measurement for the
first three years after the effective date
of this rule; (b) establishes a regular data
driven process the Department will use
to update that list after the initial
period; and (c) specifies further criteria
that institutions must attest apply to a
program to deem it a qualifying graduate
program.
We define an initial list of potentially
qualifying graduate programs whose
students are generally required to
complete a postgraduation training
program to obtain a license to practice
independently in the following fields:
medicine, osteopathy, dentistry, clinical
psychology, marriage and family
therapy, clinical social work, and
clinical counseling. These fields were
selected based on credible evidence
presented to the Department that
program graduates are subject to
lengthy, government-imposed,
postgraduation training requirements;
and graduates’ earnings may be
constrained by these requirements for at
least three years after they graduate from
a program.
A program is considered to be an
outlier in terms of its earnings growth if
its growth is more than two standard
deviations higher than the average
earnings growth among programs with
the same credential level. A graduate
degree field (defined by credential level
and CIP code) will be considered to
have outlier earnings growth if at least
half of the individual programs in the
field have outlier earnings growth.
In using the College Scorecard data to
determine which graduate fields are
outliers in terms of earnings growth, we
seek to identify programs that have
atypically high earnings growth between
the first three years after they graduate,
and subsequent years. In practice, the
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
College Scorecard measures earnings 1, 3-, 5-, and 10-years (the 5- and 10-year
measures are planned, but not yet
available, though will be after the initial
period) after graduation. Accordingly, to
measure whether programs have outlier
earnings growth we will base our
assessment on the comparisons
available in these data. Defining a
program as an outlier based on whether
its earnings growth is two standard
deviations above the mean is rooted in
a common statistical approach for
defining outliers.134
We will conduct this process every
three years to balance a desire to stay up
to date with current practices around
licensure and training requirements,
while ensuring institutions have
stability in how the metrics of the rule
will be calculated for their programs. In
identifying postgraduate training
requirements, we limit the rule to those
that typically take at least three years to
complete. This accommodation is meant
to apply to programs where graduates’
earnings capacity three years after
graduation is constrained due to not yet
having a required license. If training
requirements took only one or two years
to complete, graduates’ earnings would
not be constrained at the point when
earnings are typically measured three
years after graduation and the
accommodation would not be necessary.
Programs with a credential level and
CIP code included in the list of
potentially qualifying graduate degree
fields are eligible to have their earnings
calculated under the extended cohort
period (with a six-year lag before
earnings are measured) if the institution
attests that A) if necessary for the
license for which the postgraduate
training is necessary, that it is
accredited by an agency that meets State
requirements; and B) at least half of the
program’s graduates obtain licensure in
a State where the postgraduation
requirements apply.
We have also made conforming
changes to refer to a ‘‘qualifying
graduate program’’ in § 668.408.
Comments: One commenter
mentioned that medical residency
length varies by specialty, so the D/E
134 There are several common ways of defining
statistical outliers in a distribution, including by
measuring how many standard deviations an
observation’s value is from the mean or by
measuring the distance of a value from the 25th or
75th percentile of a distribution in terms of
multiples of the interquartile range. In defining a
single observation as an outlier it is more common
to use a threshold of three standard deviations away
from the mean. We use a more lenient two standard
deviation standard for any single program, in part
because we require that a majority of programs in
a graduate field are outliers in order for that field
to meet the outlier earnings test to be on the list
of potentially qualifying programs.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
rates calculation should allow for
individualized time to license for
programs with medical residency, not
just an overall extension that is the same
for all programs.
Discussion: We acknowledge that
different medical specialties have
different residency lengths. It is not
feasible, however, to adapt different
cohort periods for every student
depending on the type of residency they
pursue. We believe that establishing a 6year lag before earnings are measured
gives the vast majority of students in
such programs time to complete
residency requirements and measure
their early career earnings.
Changes: None.
Tipped Income
Comments: Many commenters
expressed concerns about our ability to
fully capture earnings in sectors where
gratuities play an important role in the
compensation structure of employees,
such as many jobs associated with
cosmetology. These commenters
lamented the widespread
underreporting of income of this form to
tax authorities, but claimed it posed a
major obstacle to the Department’s
ability to capture the complete earnings
picture for workers in such situations.
These commenters also argued that this
phenomenon of tax evasion was not the
fault of institutions, and they should not
face sanctions as a consequence. Several
other commenters pointed to past
Department statements about the
prevalence of the underreporting of
tipped income. These commenters
believed that the estimates expressed in
those statements support modifying our
earnings measurement methodology.
Discussion: In the NPRM, the
Department addressed its views on the
challenges posed by unreported income
of any sort. In the NPRM section titled
‘‘Process for Obtaining Data and
Calculating D/E Rates and Earnings
Premium Measure (§ 668.405),’’ we
explained the rationale for relying on
administrative income data collected by
a partner Federal agency. There are
several reinforcing reasons why we
choose to rely on reported income to the
Federal Government. These reasons
include: individuals are legally required
to report their income subject to Federal
taxation; the Department relies on
reported income in its administration of
the title IV, HEA programs, including
with respect to Pell grant eligibility,
subsidized loan eligibility, and incomedriven repayment payment
determinations; past experiences with
the earnings appeals process suggests it
does not improve the quality of
information available to assess program
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
performance; and new research on the
prevalence and scope of unreported
income and its effects on the accuracy
of earnings measures.
As the Department explained in the
NPRM, individuals who fail to report
taxable income in a manner consistent
with Federal law are subject to
considerable legal penalties.135 In an
increasingly digitized economy, new
Federal law in the American Rescue
Plan Act lowered to $600 the reporting
threshold for when a 1099–K is issued,
which will result in more third-party
settlement organizations issuing these
forms.136 Relatedly, the increasing
prevalence of electronic payment
methods and the decline in cash
transactions should lessen the concern
of tax evasion as a source of error in our
measurement of graduates’ earnings.
The anonymity of cash transactions
makes it possible for the exchange of
goods and services to take place without
a record, facilitating evasion.137 With
digital transactions, however, records of
the transactions are kept, not only by
business owners but also by the
payment processers. This record of
payments exposes would-be evaders to
elevated risk of apprehension in the
case of an audit. Consequently, there are
now greater practical hurdles to evading
Federal tax reporting since the
Department last regulated GE programs
with respect to D/E rates. As we noted
in the NPRM, this is not to deny that
some fraction of income will be
unreported despite legal duties to
report, but instead to recognize as well
that legal demands, technology,
payment practices, and other relevant
circumstances have changed.138
In the NPRM, the Department also
explained that administrative earnings
data from the IRS play a crucial role in
the HEA framework for determining Pell
grant and other aid eligibility, as well as
monthly loan payments on income135 88
FR 32300, 32335 (May 29, 2023).
1099–K form reports payments from
payment card companies, payment apps, and online
marketplaces and is required to be filed with the
IRS by these third-party settlement organizations. In
2021, a statute was enacted that reduced the
threshold for reporting to $600, as opposed to
$20,000 in years prior. This lower reporting
threshold means that settlement organizations will
likely have to file 1099–K forms for a greater
number of sellers and transactions. See Public Law
117–2 (2021) (govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW117publ2/html/PLAW-117publ2.htm).
137 Indeed, commenters frequently cited the fact
that graduates from fields such as cosmetology often
operate cash businesses as a reason to suspect such
proprietors of tax evasion. The economics literature
also has cited a concern over tax evasion as a
drawback of paper currency. See, for example,
Rogoff, Kenneth (2015). Costs and Benefits to
Phasing Out Paper Currency. NBER
Macroeconomics Annual,29.1: 445–456.
138 88 FR 32300, 32335 (May 19, 2023).
136 The
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70041
driven repayment plans. Income
information provided from official
filings to the IRS are one of the primary
ways that borrowers document their
income to the Department to qualify for
critical student or borrower benefits. It
would be inconsistent and imprudent
for the Department to use different
earnings data for similar purposes
related to the administration of title IV,
HEA student aid. In these regulations,
earnings data are employed so that
students might avoid programs that
leave them with very low earnings or
unaffordable debt, in part to protect
taxpayer investments in the title IV,
HEA programs. More specifically, these
regulations represent front-end
safeguards on the use of title IV, HEA
support, which will reduce Federal
investments in ineffectual programs
through loans and other student aid
and, likewise, will reduce back-end
liabilities for the Department and
taxpayers when program completers
default or make reduced Federal loan
payments. It would undermine the goals
of taxpayer protection if we allow
borrowers to qualify for lower or zero
loan payments due to low reported
earnings to the IRS, but ignore these low
reported earnings when providing
students with information or
determining whether a program
prepares students for gainful
employment.
The Department’s experience with the
earnings appeal process also cautions
against making accommodations for the
possibility of income underreporting.
Because institutions were permitted to
offer alternative measures of earnings
through an appeals process under the
2014 Prior Rule, the Department has
direct experience with the challenge of
trying to measure earnings more
accurately than the information
available through administrative wage
records. As the Department noted in the
NPRM, the goal of more accurate
earnings data through the earnings
appeal process in the 2014 Prior Rule
was ultimately frustrated by implausibly
high earnings reported through the
survey measures. Problems of accurate
recall and selection bias (i.e., only
higher earners were sampled, or they
were differentially likely to respond)
among survey respondents likely
impacted that earnings appeal process
and make it unlikely that a similar
process would yield improved
information on a program’s earnings
outcomes.
The Department notes that
commenters’ concerns with earnings
reporting (e.g., misreporting or
mismeasurement, classification of small
business income, ability to observe all
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70042
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
earners) would be more likely to occur
in survey measurements of income than
in administrative records. First, the
definitions of different types of income
are complicated and would require
survey respondents to recall not only
those definitions but also the amount of
earnings that fit into each category. By
contrast, administrative records contain
this information for all earners, often
prepared by tax professionals who are
well aware of the proper definitions. To
the extent that commenters are
concerned about tax evasion in
reporting to the IRS, it is hard to see
why program graduates would be more
forthcoming about the true nature of
their earnings on a survey, where they
have no legal obligation to report
accurately, especially if such reporting
would implicate them in tax crimes.
Survey data are also hard to collect
accurately, with a great deal of scholarly
work in survey methodology devoted to
handling biases produced by common
biases of respondents and the difficulty
in collecting representative, truthful
data on all types of individuals of
interest. Given these challenges, lessons
from prior experience, and the
incentives for institutions to find a
sample of students whose aggregated
earnings would allow their program to
continue operating, the Department
does not believe that surveys would
prove a reliable measure of earnings.
Finally, as we explained in the
NPRM, new research is now available.
A 2022 study shows that earnings
underreporting is likely to be small—
about 8 percent—in contrast to previous
estimates that formed part of the record
for the 2014 GE rule and was a basis for
arguments in litigation over that rule.139
139 See Am. Ass’n of Cosmetology Sch. v. Devos,
258 F. Supp. 3d 50, 59–60 (D.D.C. 2017) (stating
that ‘‘[a] report by Stanford professor Dr. Eric
Bettinger, which was submitted to the agency
during the notice-and-comment period, found that
both tip income and self-employment income are,
on average, underreported by around 60 [percent]’’).
The report referenced by the court is Bettinger, Eric
(May 26, 2014). Imputation of Income Under
Gainful Employment. We have reviewed that report
again during this rulemaking.
The recent study that we reference in the text of
this final rule and that we discussed in the 2023
NPRM is Cellini, Stephanie Riegg & Blanchard,
Kathryn J. (2022). Hair and Taxes: Cosmetology
Programs, Accountability Policy, and the Problem
of Underreported Income. Geo. Wash. Univ.
(www.peerresearchproject.org/peer/research/body/
PEER_HairTaxes-Final.pdf).
The 2022 Cellini and Blanchard study critiques
the earlier May 26, 2014, study by Bettinger, which
had estimated a much higher level of underreported
earnings for cosmetologists. See id. at 11 n. 14
(discussing Bettinger (May 26, 2014). Imputation of
Income Under Gainful Employment). See also our
discussion in the NPRM, 88 FR 32300, 32336,
32346 (May 19, 2023). We independently reviewed
the Bettinger report during this rulemaking, as well
as Cellini and Blanchard’s critique of it. We concur
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
The Department’s goal is a reasonable
assessment of available evidence
overall, and the Department has taken
care not to rely unduly on any one
study. At the same time, the Department
has accounted for evidence that puts
into perspective the low magnitude of
possible underreporting that is relevant
to these rules.
In addition, as we emphasized in the
NPRM, the timing for measuring
earnings in this final rule differs from
the timing in the 2014 Prior Rule.140
This change in timing, where graduates’
earnings will be measured longer after
when they graduate, will tend to
increase the measured earnings of all
programs. Based on our analyses of
program median earnings estimates
under the 2014 Prior Rule and those
released in the PPD, we estimate that
such increases are likely to be much
higher than the 8 percent estimate of
underreporting from the Cellini and
Blanchard research. Therefore, the rule
already includes safeguards against
potential underestimates of earnings.
We also seek to avoid the perverse
incentives that would be created by
making the rule’s application more
lenient for programs in proportion to
how commonly their graduates
unlawfully underreport their incomes.
We do not believe that taxpayersupported educational programs where
benefits are provided based on reported
income to the IRS should, in effect,
receive credit when their graduates fail
with Cellini and Blanchard that the May 26, 2014,
Bettinger report appears to include an unrealistic
overestimate of underreported total income. The
Bettinger report inflates total income by 50 percent,
and the adjustment appears to be based on an
assumption about the share of underreported tips;
however, tipped income is only a portion of total
income.
We further observe that, according to a report
sponsored by Wella Company and others—with
listed supporters including John Paul Mitchell
Systems, the Professional Beauty Systems, and
others, and submitted or referenced by numerous
commenters during the public comment period for
this final rule, including AACS-salon owners
reported a ‘‘high rate of tip compliance.’’ Qnity
Institute (2023). A Career in Pro Beauty, at 8
(https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eoDownloadDocument?pubId=&eodoc=true&
documentID=216592). Specifically, that source
indicates that 4 percent of salons reported not
allowing their employees to receive tips, 87 percent
of salons surveyed reported that tips were included
on the W2 for all employees, and another 5 percent
of salons reported tips on the W2 for some
employees; meaning that just 4 percent of salons
did not report tips for employees on W2s. See id.
This report also relied on the Cellini & Blanchard
(2022) estimate of 8 percent tip underreporting for
the report’s estimate of annualized earnings. See id.
Finally, we note again that tips included on credit
card payments to a business are more likely to be
reported, as we have discussed above in the text,
and it is reasonable to expect that many workers are
complying with the law to include tips in their
reported income.
140 88 FR 32300, 32329–35 (May 19, 2023).
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
to report income for tax purposes. All
things equal, earnings underreporting
will tend to have borrowers repay less
of their loans under income driven
repayment plans. If the Department
ignores lower reported earnings among
some programs, it would effectively be
supporting greater taxpayer investments
in those programs. Even if that position
were fiscally sustainable, it would
incentivize institutions to discourage
accurate reporting of earnings among
program graduates—at the ultimate
expense of taxpayers. It could also
potentially invite private investment in
training programs aimed at exploiting
this weakness in accountability for
student loans that are unlikely to have
to be repaid, thereby increasing the
amount of Federal funds going to
programs like these.
Given these considerations, the
Department reaffirms its decision to rely
on administrative earnings reported to a
Federal agency, comparable in quality to
earnings data from the IRS, without an
opportunity to appeal these earnings
estimates or accommodation for the
possibility of income underreporting. To
the extent that institutions believe that
underreporting is negatively affecting
their program’s performance on the D/
E rates and EP metrics, the Department
continues to believe that institutions are
well positioned to counsel their
students on the importance of tax
compliance. Indeed, many commenters
noted the role that cosmetology
programs play in training their students
to run their own small businesses,
including managing their finances.
Though individuals are certainly the
most responsible party for decisions
about tax compliance, programs are as
well positioned as any party to inform
students about the requirements and
benefits of tax compliance. Therefore, it
is also important in the Department’s
view to maintain incentives for
programs to deliver this message as
effectively as possible.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters
expressed suspicion about the quality of
our earnings data based on their own
knowledge of earnings level in their
industry. In some cases, this knowledge
came from employing people in the
field and marshalling evidence from the
W–2 wage records of their employees,
while others provided anecdotal reports
of their own earnings or those of people
they know working in the field.
Discussion: While we value the input
of commenters who wish to alert us to
a mismatch between their industry
experience and the earnings reflected in
the 2022 PPD released with the NPRM,
we remain confident in the
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
comprehensiveness of the data we use
to assess the earnings of program
graduates. IRS earnings data are the
most comprehensive source of income
available for individuals in the United
States and are legally required to be
reported by all individuals who have
income above a minimum earnings
level. The measures provided in the
PPD come from the College Scorecard
and contain both total wages and
deferred compensation from W–2 forms,
as well as positive self-employment
earnings from 1040–SE IRS forms for
each completer. Only Federal
administrative sources contain such a
comprehensive view of earned income.
The quality and reliability of this data
is reinforced by the many commenters
who cited their own business’s W–2
earnings as evidence of typical earnings
in their industry. Indeed, one
commenter conducted (and some others
cited) a study of earnings in a segment
of the beauty industry by compiling W2
records for a sample of independently
owned salon businesses with 1–10
locations. These attempts to estimate
earnings underscore the advantages of
Federal administrative data, as it
provides a comprehensive repository of
the records commenters put a great deal
of effort into collecting. However,
whereas commenters report information
from only W–2 records they have
immediate access to through their own
businesses, or through surveys of a
convenience sample of employees with
response rates of 11 percent, IRS
administrative records have no such
gaps in data collection or limitations in
coverage to individuals in a particular
set of employers. What is more, the data
available to the Department through its
data match with the IRS allows it to
observe self-employment income
through the 1040–SE records it has
access to, a source of earnings not
available to commenters.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters argued
that in lieu of constructing an
accountability framework based on
reported earnings, the Department
should focus its efforts on encouraging
or requiring tax compliance among
employers in industries where cash tips
are prevalent.
Discussion: Though the Department
fully endorses tax compliance for all
legally obligated parties, it recognizes
that enforcement of those rules is under
the purview of the IRS. In addition, as
outlined in the NPRM and the
Department’s above responses about
unreported income, the Department
does not believe there are strong reasons
to make accommodations for the
possibility of income underreporting.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters noted
recent changes in tax law requiring
electronic third-party payment
processors to issue a 1099–K for dollar
amounts as low as $600, a fact relevant
to the ability of workers who use such
electronic transfer payments to have
those payments go undetected. One
commenter noted that because this
change will likely increase tax
compliance and mitigate any
underreporting issue, the Department
should delay implementation of the
regulations until the earnings years used
in the rule were covered by this change,
which was first applied to the 2022 tax
year.
Discussion: As the Department
explained in the NPRM and its response
to commenters with regard to the
underreporting of income, the changes
to 1099–K reporting requirements for
third party settlement organizations is
an important change in the landscape of
tax compliance since the last time the
Department expressed a view on the
extent of underreported income in
administrative earnings data. However,
while this change certainly buttresses
the Department’s confidence that
currently there is not a more reliable
source of earnings information for all
occupations, it is not the decisive factor,
and therefore the Department does not
view the delay of the law’s
implementation as grounds to delay
implementation of either the
Transparency Framework or the GE
standards.
Changes: None.
Unearned and Self-Employment Income
Comments: Some commenters noted
that self-employment is common for
some fields and that accurate income
measurement could be difficult for
individuals in such circumstances
because individuals often choose to
keep income in their business or may be
able to count business expenses against
their total income to reduce their
taxable income. In particular, one
commenter expressed concern that
earnings captured on form 1040
schedule SE would not be included in
graduates’ incomes. One commenter
asserted that the Department has
acknowledged limitations in its ability
to capture self-employment earnings in
the Master Earnings File and claims no
adequate remedy has been proposed.
Discussion: The earnings data in the
PPD used to conduct the Regulatory
Impact Analysis come from the College
Scorecard data, which matches title IV,
HEA recipient data for completer
cohorts to three-year earnings
information from the IRS. As the
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70043
technical documentation for the College
Scorecard explains, these data contain
‘‘the sum of wages and deferred
compensation from all non-duplicate
W–2 forms and positive selfemployment earnings from IRS Form
1040 Schedules SE (Self-Employment
Tax) for each student measured.’’ As
noted elsewhere, the Department
believes these are data are well-suited
for the purposes of these regulations.
Changes: None.
Inclusion of Non-Completers
Comments: Several commenters
provided feedback about our choice to
exclude non-completers from our
calculation of official measures of
program performance, including the D/
E rates and EP measures. Some
mentioned the possibility of including
non-completers in the information
provided to students through the
financial value transparency framework.
One commenter supported including
non-completers because they represent
such a large share (the majority) of
students in higher education. Another
recognized the value of including noncompleters but argued against it for the
purposes of constructing a consumer
information tool. The remaining
commenters opposed the use of noncompleters for these measures, arguing
that most students were concerned with
results for students who complete their
programs.
Discussion: Though the Department
recognizes the importance of
considering the experiences of students
who do not complete a program for
understanding student success in any
field, we believe that tracking results for
completers is the most practical
approach to assessing outcomes. That
approach bases the median earnings
measure on students who have had the
full benefit of the educational
experience at the institution, and that
measured debt levels reflect the cost of
obtaining the credential. While we agree
that institutions should be accountable
for helping their students attain a
degree, these regulations focus primarily
on promoting a balance between
financial costs and benefits to students
of different credentials. Still, the rule
includes completion rates at the
institution or program level among a set
of supplemental performance metrics
that may be included in the program
information website to provide this
added context to students.
Changes: None.
Median and Mean—§§ 668.403 and
668.404
Comments: A number of commenters
disagreed with the Department’s
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70044
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
proposal in the NPRM to use the median
earnings amount for the D/E rates
measure and the EP measure. Many
commenters noted that in the 2011 and
2014 Prior Rules, the Department used
the higher of the mean and median
earnings amount as the denominator for
the debt-to-earnings rate and these
commenters suggested that approach
should be applied to calculate earnings
for the D/E and EP metrics in this rule
as well. One commenter noted that the
Department’s rationale in the text of the
2014 final rule for using the higher of
mean and median earnings was
grounded in a concern about the impact
of a large number of zero earnings
individuals in a completer cohort. In
general, quantile statistics such as the
median have the drawback of instability
if there is a large dispersion of the data
near a given quantile point.
One commenter presented a simple
example, if a program had five earners
(putting to one side the fact that such a
program’s earnings would be privacy
suppressed) whose earnings were $0,
$0, $0, $50,000, and $50,000, their
median earnings would be $0. However,
if just one of those $0 estimates
switched to $50,000, the median would
switch to $50,000 as well. The question
presented by such a case is whether the
mean earnings ($20,000 in the first case,
$30,000 in the second) better conveys
what graduates typically earn at such a
program than the $0 median.
The 2014 Prior Rule argued that in
such cases the mean is the better
reflection of what students can expect
than the median. It concluded that in
cases where the median is the higher of
the two statistics, the mean should be
preferred because it reflects high levels
of employment in higher earning jobs.
Such an example is evident in our
second case above, where the median
earnings would be $50,000, but the
mean is $30,000.
Discussion: As the Department
explained in the 2023 NPRM’s
Background Section,141 the Department
has changed its view on the tradeoffs
presented by the advantages and
disadvantages of these two measures of
central tendency and has concluded that
the median is the correct measure. This
view is grounded in the fact that the
median reflects the minimum earnings
level achieved by at least half of a
program’s graduates, a meaningful
measure of student earnings that reflects
the experience of the majority of
students. Based on data released in the
2014 rule, the median and mean
earnings of programs are often very
similar. Mean earnings are most
141 88
FR 32300, 32311 (May 19, 2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
commonly higher than median earnings
of program completers at programs with
very low earnings levels. In such
programs, most graduates may have
earnings close to minimum wage
earnings, but there may be some outlier
observations with higher earnings—
leading the mean to be higher. Again,
we believe it is more appropriate to base
the rule on the median earnings, since
it indicates the amount of earnings that
half of graduates exceed, and it is not as
sensitive to outlier observations.
The Department notes that the
commenter’s example with just five
earnings estimates provides some useful
insight into potential limitations of the
use of median earnings, but gives an
overly dramatic sense of the stakes
between the mean and median in the
context of the rule. Under these rules,
the Department only calculates earnings
when there is a minimum of 30
completers in a cohort. With more
observations, the difference in earnings
among observations near the median is
likely to be much smaller than in the
commenter’s example and so additions
of one higher or lower earner will tend
to change the median only slightly. On
the other hand, an addition of a single
extremely high earner could influence
the mean substantially, even though
outcomes for nearly all students are left
unchanged. We view the potential of
this latter type of distortion as much
more likely and therefore prefer the
median.
The Department also believes it is
important to be consistent across
measures by using same statistic to
measure both program graduates’
earnings and to construct the earnings
thresholds to calculate the earnings
premium. The Department cited
evidence in the NPRM that mean
earnings levels among high school
graduates in a State are always higher
than median earnings levels because of
the large rightward skew of the earnings
distribution created by very high earners
in income distributions. Using the
higher of mean and median earnings in
the construction of each State’s high
school earnings threshold would thus
result in a much higher EP threshold for
programs to meet. Given our concerns
with the representativeness of the mean
in the earnings context, we believe such
a standard would be an inappropriate
comparator for programs. Taken as a
whole, we believe the correct choice for
both setting an earnings threshold and
measuring program graduates’ typical
earnings against that threshold is to use
median earnings.
Changes: None.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Part-Time Employment
Comments: Many commenters
mentioned that workers often choose
fields such as cosmetology for their
flexible work schedules, allowing them
to combine part-time work with other
valuable activities such as childcare.
Working fewer hours means lower
annual earnings, they say, but that
hourly rates remain very strong and
show that many jobs are still lucrative
given the number of hours employees in
these sectors are working.
Discussion: We acknowledge that
many workers may choose to pursue
occupations with work schedules that
suit their lives. Regardless of the hours
that individuals choose to work, we
believe it is important that students who
borrow earn enough in total to be able
to afford their debt payments. For the
earnings premium metric, we do not
condition on full-time employment in
measuring the median high school
earnings of individuals in the same
State. We therefore compare the
earnings of program graduates to high
school degree earners in the same State,
some of whom are also making similar
choices to work part-time.
Changes: None.
Graduates Who Earn Higher Degrees
Comments: One commenter expressed
concern about the exclusion of
graduates who earn higher degrees from
a program’s data, since these students
may ultimately have higher earnings.
Discussion: In measuring median
earnings under the rule, we exclude
program completers who are enrolled
full-time in a postsecondary program in
the year their earnings are measured.
Otherwise, however, we will not
exclude individuals who may
subsequently have gone on to earn a
higher credential. As a result, if one
program helps students attain higher
credentials and thereby higher earnings,
that will be reflected in the programs
outcomes.
Changes: None.
Earnings Data
Comments: Some commenters
expressed suspicion whether the IRS
data sources were accurate, with
concerns often centering around
differences between the incomes
reported in the Program Performance
and other government sources such as
the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As a
result, some commenters argued,
schools should have the ability to
examine earnings data.
Discussion: The disparities between
the earnings data in the PPD and the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
particular stem from a difference in
what these two sources attempt to
measure. Whereas the PPD measures
earnings for all individuals who
graduate from specific programs,
regardless of the industry they enter (or
whether they find any formal
employment at all) 3 years after
completion, the BLS data cited by the
commenters measures the distribution
of earnings for individuals who
successfully work in a given industry,
irrespective of their path into the
industry or the stage of their career. It
is, therefore, not surprising that these
two data sources would differ in the
earnings they observe; they estimate a
different value for a different
population. As we explained in the
NPRM and elsewhere in this preamble,
we believe that administrative earnings
records from the Federal Government
matched to the specific students who
graduated from a given program is the
correct way to measure program
earnings outcomes. We believe it is
much more appropriate for its purpose
than aggregated statistics for whole
sectors of the economy, which do not
have any necessary relationship to the
outcomes of graduates of particular
programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted
that there is no provision for adjusting
the 2021 and 2022 earnings for inflation,
in contrast to earnings data provided on
the College Scorecard. The commenter
noted that we did not explain was given
in the NPRM about the rationale for this
difference, even though it could affect
earnings measurements.
Discussion: The D/E rates metric is a
ratio of debt payments divided by
earnings or discretionary earnings. For
presentation purposes, debt and income
numbers from previous years may be
translated into more current year dollars
on the program information website to
facilitate interpretation. But outcomes
under the D/E rates metric would not be
affected if we do so since both the
numerator and denominator would be
subject to the same inflation adjustment.
For the EP metric, again since both
program earnings and the earnings
threshold would be adjusted by
inflation, the pass/fail outcome of each
program is not influenced by the
adjustment. Still, the Department may
present the EP with such an adjustment
on the Department’s website and in
other communications to facilitate
interpretation.
Changes: None.
Completers With No Income
Comments: One commenter
recommended that the Department
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
change its calculation of median
earnings for programs by excluding
individuals with no reported income
and then also removing the same
number of individuals from the debt
cohort, where those individuals are
selected for having the highest debt
burdens out of the cohort for that
program. The rationale, they explained,
was that it is unfair to assume zero
earnings reflects inability to find work.
Discussion: While the Department
recognizes that often individuals choose
to leave the labor force for reasons that
do not reflect their ability to find a job,
we believe that, especially with respect
to the career training programs covered
by the accountability provisions of the
regulations, students typically have a
strong interest in being employed in the
three-year window directly after
graduation. As a result, we believe
measuring median earnings, and
including those with zero earnings,
among completers is the best way to
capture the labor market outcomes of
program graduates, including both the
likelihood that they find employment
and the earnings among those who are
employed.
Changes: None.
Individuals in Comprehensive
Transition and Postsecondary (CTP)
Programs
Comments: One commenter indicated
that the Department should not exclude
students enrolled in CTP programs from
GE requirements, arguing that such
students were particularly vulnerable
and, despite being ineligible for Direct
Loans, could exhaust their Pell Grant
eligibility while enrolled in poorperforming CTP programs. The
commenter asked the Department to
consider other options to ensure the
quality of CTP programs.
Discussion: Although we agree with
the commenter that it is important that
CTP programs are of adequate quality,
we do not believe that applying the
Financial Transparency metrics to CTP
programs is the appropriate method of
ensuring program quality. As stated in
the NPRM, the Department does not
believe it is appropriate to apply either
the earnings premium or D/E metric to
CTP programs. Since students in CTP
programs are not required to have a high
school credential, it would be
inappropriate to judge a CTP program’s
earnings outcomes against the outcomes
of individuals with a high school
diploma or the equivalent. And, since
these students also are not eligible to
obtain Federal student loans, debt-toearnings rates would be meaningless for
these programs.
Changes: None.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70045
Data Sources
Comments: Some commenters
expressed concern that the Department
has not definitively determined the
Federal data source that will provide the
earnings data used to calculate the D/E
rates and EP measures. These
commenters further argued that this
indeterminacy does not allow the public
adequate opportunity to comment on
their choice of data source.
Discussion: The Department provided
an adequate notice and opportunity to
comment on the proposed rules
regarding earnings data, as well as the
subjects and issues involved in choosing
among data sources. Although the
Department has not finalized its data
source for the administration of these
rules, we have confidence in the
reliability of all Federal agency sources
under consideration. We believe it is
prudent for the long-term efficacy of the
rules to retain the flexibility to change
data sources if future changes in law or
data collection practices and availability
make impracticable the use of
whichever source might be best to use
today. At the same time, the
Department’s NPRM informed the
public about the kind of data needed for
the rules, as well as the sources from
which those data might be drawn.
Indeed, in the NPRM, the Department
expressed its current preference for the
use of the IRS data that already forms
the basis of the earnings measures in the
Department’s College Scorecard data,
and that is used for the Regulatory
Impact Analysis in this rule. Comments
were welcome on the data types and
data sources that we could use in the
final rule, including any specific
concerns about the Department’s
preferred options. The Department did,
in fact, receive a number of comments
regarding those issues—for example, on
whether administrative data capture
self-employment earnings or whether
other survey-based sources of earnings
might be appropriate substitutes—and
we have responded to those comments
elsewhere in this document.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
pointed to salary aggregation websites
such as salary.com and ZipRecruiter as
alternative data sources, either to
support claims about the pay increases
their students would see after an initial
supervisory or apprenticeship period
post-graduation or to dispute the facial
validity of the Department’s earnings
estimates for some types of programs.
Discussion: As with other data
sources provided by commenters to
challenge the accuracy of the data
provided through the PPD, the
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70046
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Department would like to emphasize the
comprehensiveness of its Federal
administrative data and the reasons that
it should be used instead of external
sources that do not have a census of
earnings records directly matched to the
individuals who complete a given
program of study.
Websites such as those mentioned by
commenters use a variety of methods to
estimate earnings for a field, but none of
these methods come close to the
coverage of the IRS data used to obtain
program-level earnings. Instead, they
rely on sources such as job listings or
self-reported income from website users
or other survey sources. By their nature,
these methods try to estimate the data
we directly obtain from Federal
administrative sources. In addition,
these external sources provide industrywide estimates of earnings, regardless of
worker experience or background, and
often miss the earnings of program
graduates who work in a different
occupation than that the program
intends to train students for, as well as
students who may not find work
altogether. We do not believe that these
sources provide any reason to doubt the
accuracy of Federal administrative data,
and more broadly believe they are not
an appropriate data source to assess the
performance of particular programs for
our present purposes.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed
concern that institutions would not be
able to collect income information from
their students, because it would be a
large burden and because students
would be unwilling to (and should not
have to share) personal income
information. This commenter also
suggested that the State should collect
such information.
Discussion: The regulations in this
rulemaking do not require institutions
to collect earnings information for their
students. The Department will obtain
the relevant earnings information
through a Federal agency with
administrative earnings records.
Changes: None.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Minimum N-Size for Earnings and Debt
Metrics
Comments: One commenter noted
that they interpreted the remarks of the
Department as implying that we would
consider a look-back period of 2 to 6
years to develop a cohort of a minimum
of 30 students. The commenter objected
to the longer look-back period, arguing
that such a long period cannot account
for any improvements in policy that a
program may have made in more recent
years.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Discussion: The Department will use
a 4-year cohort (i.e., combining
completers who graduate over 4
consecutive award years) when a 2-year
cohort is insufficient for a n-size of 30.
The Department has not considered a
period that is broader than 4 years. The
use of a 4-year cohort, when needed,
will enable the Department to include
data from more programs in the D/E and
EP measures.
We note that some lag in the metrics
between when students complete a
program and when the data is produced
is inevitable if we wait several years to
measure the earnings of program
completers. As discussed elsewhere we
believe the 3-year lag to measure
earnings is appropriate to allow
graduates a period to find employment
and settle into their early careers, and
the broader lag stems from this choice.
For a period after the effective date of
the rule, however, institutions can
choose to report data for transitional
rates on more recent cohorts’
information for calculating median debt
levels. During this transition period,
changes to programs’ borrowing
outcomes will be reflected more rapidly
in the D/E rates published by the
Department.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested
analysis of additional n-sizes beyond
the assessment of 10 and 30 completers,
as we discussed in the NPRM. They
suggest allowing the minimum n-size to
vary by program depending on the need
for privacy considerations, or for the
rule to include flexibility in the
determination of n-size.
Discussion: An n-size of 30 is
consistent with past Department
practices, including the policy
governing the development of cohort
default rates, as well as IRS data policy.
We recognize that a lower n-size would
include more programs, but we believe
the n-size of 30 completers over a fouryear period is appropriate to protect the
privacy of individuals who complete
smaller programs, and we project will
result in coverage of over 80 percent of
students receiving Federal student aid
(as documented in the RIA).
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
posited that excluding D/E rates for
programs with fewer than 30 students
completing during a 2- or 4-cohort
period rewards public and private
nonprofit programs with poor
graduation rates.
Discussion: As detailed in the RIA,
many programs have very few
completers in any given year, and such
programs are indeed more prevalent
among public and private nonprofit
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
institutions. Still, the more relevant
measure of coverage of the rule is the
share of students covered. As we
explain in the RIA, with these privacy
safeguards in place we expect to be able
to publish metrics for programs that
enroll over 80 percent of federally aided
students in both the GE and non-GE
programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
supported the approach to calculate
median debt based on at least 30
completers in an applicable cohort.
Discussion: We thank the commenter
for their support.
Changes: None.
Measurement of Debt
General Opposition
Comments: Several commenters
argued that the rule is too lenient
because of reasons such as: it does not
include all types of debt in the
calculation of D/E, does not take into
account other debt metrics such as
repayment rates, and because graduate
student have longer amortization
periods. One commenter argued that the
leniency leads only a small subset of
programs to be subject to the metrics
and that many programs are immune
from the accountability metrics.
Discussion: The regulations will
provide stronger protections for
students of programs where typical
students have high debt burdens or low
earnings. The share of student
enrollment that is covered under the
rule is much higher than the share of
programs that is covered because there
are many very small programs with only
a few students enrolled each year. As
discussed in the RIA, we estimate that
more than half of all programs have
fewer than five students completing per
year and about 20 percent have fewer
than five students enrolled each year.
The Department believes that the
coverage of students based on
enrollment is more than sufficiently
high to generate substantial net benefits
from the policy. We believe that the
number of students, rather than
programs, covered by the rule is the
more important consideration because
the benefits, costs, and transfers
associated with the policy almost all
scale with the number of students
(enrollment or completions) rather than
the number of programs.
We do not agree that the Department
arbitrarily chose which types of debt to
include in the D/E rates calculation. For
most borrowers, we measure
substantially all of their debt, including
private and institutional loans. We
exclude parent PLUS loans because
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
parents—and not the students—are
responsible for repaying those loans.
Finally, we cap this debt at the net
direct costs charged to a student in
deference to consistent concerns from
institutions that they cannot directly
control students’ borrowing for living
expenses.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
criticized the Department for only
applying GE rules to the for-profit
sector. The commenters argued that
4-year degree programs (administered at
private nonprofit and public
institutions) saddle students with more
debt than shorter programs; however,
these programs are not subject to
accountability under GE. These
commenters argued that the notion that
for-profit institutions saddle students
with debt at the taxpayers’ expense is
misguided and not the source of the
affordability problems in higher
education.
Discussion: The GE regulatory
provisions do not measure total debt in
isolation. Rather, the regulations hold
programs accountable for the ratio of
debt to earnings. Although debt may be
higher for graduates of some 4-year
programs (at private and public
institutions), it is reasonable to expect
typical earnings to also be higher at
programs that lead to students
borrowing large amounts. The rule will
require 4-year programs at for-profit
institutions to pass the D/E and EP
metrics, and the rule includes
transparency provisions for non-GE
programs, including 4-year degree
programs, that fail D/E metrics to
provide information about the program.
Further, GE provisions in the HEA
apply only to GE programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter does not
believe institutions should be held
accountable for student borrowing
because institutions’ financial aid
departments do not have control over
how much students borrow.
Specifically, the commenter noted that
institutions are required to offer
students loans up to what they are
offered, even if that exceeds the cost of
tuition and fees.
Discussion: Under § 668.403, we cap
the debt counted for institutions at the
costs of tuition and fees and books and
supplies. Institutions have a role in how
much they charge to attend programs
and in the earnings of their students.
These regulations encourage students to
attend programs where their debt levels
are not likely to be burdensome relative
to their earnings.
Changes: None.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Comments: One commenter
questioned whether large loan balances
are the primary reason for default, as
opposed to students’ choice or
preference to not repay loans or changes
in financial and repayment
circumstances. The same commenter
questioned the use of default rates while
the Department is pursuing Fresh Start.
Discussion: This rule focuses on the
ratio of debt to earnings and an earnings
premium, not on default rates. The
Department will use the D/E rates
measure to assess the affordability of the
debt students incur to pay for their
educational program. Regardless of
students’ decision to make loan
payments, a program’s D/E rates will be
the same.
Changes: None.
Debt Capped at Net Direct Costs
Comments: Several commenters
supported the modification to cap the
median loan debt at tuition and fees net
of institutional grants rather than the
amount assessed.
Discussion: We thank the commenters
for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters argued
that the Department should reduce the
total debt number by the amount of any
Federal or State grant funds that the
student received and used to pay tuition
and fee costs. These commenters argued
that some students borrow to cover
living expenses even when they have
received State and Federal aid to cover
tuition and fees. These commenters
suggested that to ensure that institutions
are not held accountable for funds
borrowed in excess of what is required
to pay for tuition and fees, the
Department should reduce the total debt
number by the amount of any Federal or
State grant funds that the student
received and used to pay tuition and fee
costs.
Two other commenters suggested that
the Department deduct ‘‘outside
scholarships and grants intended for
direct costs from the capped tuition and
fees’’ in the D/E metrics, recommending
that the Department net-out both
institutional and external grant aid.
Discussion: The Department will
deduct only grant controlled by the
institution from the estimate of charges
for direct costs used to cap individual
borrowers’ debts. The institution
controls institutional grants but would
typically not control State grants or
external scholarships.
Additionally, under § 668.403,
median debt is calculated by capping
the total amount of each student’s
borrowing at the charges for direct costs
(tuition, fees, books, and supplies),
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70047
minus any institutional grant aid the
student receives. Therefore, the
Department does not hold institutions
accountable for loans taken out in
excess of direct costs as the commenters
suggest. One way that programs can
lower their D/E metric is by controlling
their net direct program costs—that is,
by lowering tuition or providing greater
institutional aid.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
suggested that the Department include
all student debt (not just debt for
tuition, fees, books, equipment, and
supplies) in the measurement of debt. A
few commenters argued that until the
Department restricts borrowing to
course delivery, the Department should
count all debt regardless of what it is
used for.
Discussion: The measurement of debt
will cap each student’s amount
borrowed at the total net direct costs
charged to a student. This is in part in
deference to institutions’ concerns that
borrowing for the cost of living is not
directly under the control of the
institution, whereas institutions can
exercise more control over the direct
costs charged to students.
Another reason to cap the
measurement of debt at direct charges is
that it mitigates the influence of
differences in students’ family income
background on measured median debt
levels across programs, since some of
the additional borrowing of low-income
students relative to higher income
students is due to borrowing for living
costs.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the Department should not remove
institutional grant aid from cost of
attendance in the measurement of
program debt.
Discussion: This rule departs from the
2014 Prior Rule in subtracting
institutional grants and scholarships
from the measure of direct costs. This
change, as described in the NPRM, was
in the interest of fairness to institutions
that provide substantial assistance to
students. Since this type of aid is more
common among non-GE programs than
GE programs, this change in approach is
related to the fact that under subpart Q,
the D/E rates will be computed for all
types of programs rather than only GE
programs as was the case in the 2014
Prior Rule.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested
that the Department exclude loans
borrowed for programs at the
institution—other than the one from
which the student graduated. The
commenter contended that, to establish
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70048
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
a true estimate of debt associated with
the program a student completes, the
attribution provisions should only apply
to debt associated with credits from a
non-completed program that transfer
into the student’s ultimate program or
that share the same CIP code, or career
programs completed at the institution,
or both.
Another commenter noted that when
students transfer between programs, or
when a student enters an institution and
does not declare a major, attributing
debt to a particular program becomes
complex.
A few commenters suggested that the
Department include all student debt
incurred as of graduation, not just debt
incurred for a particular program. These
commenters recommended that we hold
institutions accountable for the overall
financial well-being of their students.
The commenters also noted that many
programs admit students knowing that
they incurred debt from other programs
at the same institution or at other
institutions. The commenters also
highlighted the relevance of the
inclusion of all debt for stackable
credentials.
Discussion: The Department excludes
loan debt incurred by the student for
enrollment in programs at other
institutions (with the potential
exception of when institutions are
under common ownership or control).
We do not believe it would be fair to
hold institutions accountable for debt
incurred at other institutions not under
their control. We agree that attributing
debt to programs within institutions is
complex and believe the most
reasonable way to do so is to assign it
to the highest credentialed program
subsequently completed by the student
at the institution (within undergraduate
and graduate levels). The measurement
of debt is based on program completers.
Changes: None.
Parent PLUS Loans
Comments: Many commenters
supported exclusion of parent PLUS
loans from the median debt calculation.
Commenters noted that parent PLUS
loans are serviced by parents’ earnings,
so these loans should not be included in
a measure of the student’s debt service
obligations. Commenters also noted that
the inclusion of parent PLUS loans in
debt service might logically suggest also
including parental earnings in D/E rates
calculations.
Discussion: We agree with
commenters in support of exclusion of
parent PLUS loans. We exclude parent
PLUS loans because parents are
responsible for repaying those loans,
and treating the debt service associated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
with those loans as a burden to be paid
out of the students’ earnings may not be
appropriate for many students.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
suggested that the Department include
parent PLUS loans in calculation of debt
for D/E ratios. One commenter argued
that excluding parent PLUS loans
benefits programs serving mostly
dependent students. The commenter
also contended that since independent
students are ineligible for parent PLUS
loans, excluding these loans increases
debt for programs serving primarily
independent students. The commenter
claimed that while the Department
states that students are not responsible
for repaying parent PLUS loans taken
out by a family member, many students
nevertheless assist their parents with
repayment of these loans. Another
commenter argued that the exclusion of
parent PLUS loans fails to account for
the true amount of debt and
unreasonably benefits degree-granting
programs at public institutions. Several
other commenters claimed that by
excluding parent PLUS loans, the
Department is undercounting debt
obligations and creating a loophole for
institutions. Institutions could shift the
financial burden of financing higher
education from the institution or the
student to the parents. One commenter
suggested that the Department exclude
Direct PLUS loans from measure of debt.
Discussion: The primary purpose of
the D/E rates is to indicate whether
graduates of the program can afford to
repay their educational debt. Repayment
of parent PLUS is ultimately the
responsibility of the parent borrower,
not the student. Moreover, the ability to
repay parent PLUS loans depends
largely upon the income of the parent
borrower, who did not attend the
program. We believe that including in a
program’s D/E rates the parent PLUS
debt obtained on behalf of dependent
students would cloud the meaning of
the D/E rates and would ultimately
render them less useful to students and
families.
The commenter contended that not
including parent PLUS loans increases
debt for programs serving primarily
independent students. This statement is
not accurate, because including parent
Plus loans would not impact (positively
or negatively) the median debt for a
program that serves predominantly
independent students who are ineligible
for parent PLUS loans. By not including
parent PLUS loans, the median debt is
not increased as the commenter
suggests. Rather, exclusion of parent
PLUS loans creates an accurate
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
assessment of the student’s ability to
repay loans as discussed above.
We remain concerned, however, about
the potential for an institution to steer
families away from less costly Direct
Subsidized and Unsubsidized Loans
towards parent PLUS in an attempt to
manipulate its D/E rates. We have
addressed this concern, in part, by
proposing changes to the administrative
capability regulations at § 668.16(h),
which would require institutions to
adequately counsel students and
families about the most favorable aid
options available to them.
While distinct from the rationale for
excluding parent PLUS loans, we note
that, for the vast majority of programs,
a minority of students are recipients of
parent PLUS loans and so their
inclusion would affect the median debt
of a program only infrequently.
Changes: None.
Comments: A commenter stated that
loan debt from parent PLUS loans
disproportionately impacts low-income
and Black and Hispanic families and
contributes to the Black-White racial
wealth gap. This commenter suggested
that the Department either include
parent PLUS loans in the debt measure
or impose restrictions on the use of
parent PLUS loans that would make it
harder for institutions to ‘‘game the
system.’’ Specifically, the commenter
offered as an example, that the
Department could set limits on the
percentage of a school’s funding that
comes from parent PLUS loans or
require that students exhaust their title
IV, HEA borrowing options before
taking out parent PLUS loans.
Discussion: The Department shares
the commenter’s broad concerns about
parent PLUS loans. As explained above,
however, the Department does not
believe that this rule is the appropriate
vehicle to address these concerns.
Changes: None.
Cancelled Debt
Comments: One commenter proposed
that the Department remove any student
debt discharged or cancelled, including
as the result of a national emergency,
from the D/E rates calculations.
Discussion: The Department may
discharge or cancel debt for a variety of
reasons, including if a student becomes
totally and permanently disabled, if a
student completed 10 years of payments
while working for an eligible public
service employer, and in circumstances
where an institution may have made
misrepresentations to students, among
other reasons. These actions to
discharge or cancel loans do not absolve
or change an institution’s obligation
under the GE regulation to offer
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
programs that provide graduates with
earnings sufficient to repay their
education debt. For instance, discharges
through borrower defense to repayment
are due to acts or omissions by the
institution. Excluding such discharges
from the GE program accountability
framework would create a situation
where an institution that is found to
have engaged in substantial
misrepresentations ends up with
reduced debt amounts for GE purposes.
A similar rationale applies for false
certification discharges. In addition,
were we to exclude closed school
discharges, an institution at risk of
failure would have incentives to close
some locations to improve their
performance on metrics under the GE
program accountability framework.
Other discharges, such as those tied to
Public Service Loan Forgiveness or
income-driven repayment are unlikely
to be relevant for consideration here
because they take at least 10 years for
forgiveness, which is longer than the
timeframes under consideration for the
GE program accountability framework.
However, consistent with the 2014 GE
rule, the Department will exclude
students with one or more loans
discharged or under consideration for
discharge based on the borrower’s total
and permanent disability or if the
borrower dies. We exclude these
students (from both the numerator and
denominator of the D/E and EP
measures) because under the HEA a
student with a total and permanent
disability is unable to engage in
substantial gainful activity for a period
of at least 60 consecutive months and
thus their ability to work and have
earnings or repay a loan could be
diminished under these circumstances,
which could adversely affect a
program’s results, even though the
circumstances are the result of student
events that have nothing to do with
program performance. Similarly, an
institution would not be able to
anticipate if a borrower passes away.
Changes: None.
Reduced Program Hours
Comments: One commenter proposed
that the Department create a process for
schools to report on programs where
they reduced the hours and, therefore,
student debt in recent years. The
commenter contended that this will
allow institutions to correct the debt of
previous years that did not reflect the
current program using the same CIP
code.
Discussion: The Department
acknowledges that institutions may
attempt to improve their program
outcomes following the introduction of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
rates. The transitional D/E rates
discussed in the NPRM allow non-GE
programs to report information to
calculate debts for the most recent 2
award-years, rather than for the same
completer cohorts (who generally
graduated about 5 years earlier) as used
to measure earnings outcomes. Based on
comments received, we have modified
the final rule to extend this option to all
programs. This will allow
improvements in borrowing outcomes to
be reflected in the D/E rates.
Changes: We have extended the
option to report transitional rates
information necessary to compute
median debt for more recent cohorts to
GE programs.
High Debt Holders Eliminated Based on
Data Limits
Comments: Many commenters
questioned eliminating the highest debt
holders based on the number of students
without earnings data and believes the
Department’s basis for doing so is
arbitrary and unspecified.
Discussion: The Department is subject
to limitations in data access that
necessitate our approach. When the
Federal agency with earnings data
provides the Department with the
median earnings of students who
complete a program, it will also provide
an estimated count of the number of
students whose earnings information
could not be matched or who died. We
remove that number of the highest loan
debts before calculating the median debt
for each program. Since we do not have
individual-level information on which
students did not match to the earnings
data, we remove those with the highest
loan debts to provide a conservative
estimate of median loan debt so that we
do not overestimate the typical loan
debts of students who were successfully
matched to earnings data.
Changes: None.
Debt Service Payments Calculations
Comments: A few commenters
expressed concerns with the calculation
of the annual debt service amounts for
a typical borrower at a program that
serve as the basis for the debt-toearnings ratios. The commenters
disapproved of amortizing the median
program debt balance according to the
method described in the regulation
rather than calculating the actual annual
debt service levels observed for program
graduates under the terms of their loans
and chosen repayment plan.
A couple of commenters noted that
the interest rates used to calculate D/E
rates do not correlate with the actual
interest rates of the student loan
portfolio. The commenters
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70049
recommended that the Department
revise the annual loan payment
calculation to reflect the actual
repayment terms of the individual
student, including the amortization
period and interest rate.
Discussion: Actual loan payments
depend on a variety of factors, including
which repayment plans borrowers elect.
Programs with the same levels of
borrowing and the same earnings
outcomes could have median graduates
with different realized loan payments,
then, depending on the share enrolled
in various plans. Similarly, changes in
the set of plans available might lead
actual loan payments to change even
with no changes in borrowing or labor
market outcomes. Using estimated
yearly debt payments that are a function
of how much students borrow should
focus institutions on the goal of
ensuring that their programs are ex ante
not requiring students to take on
unaffordable debt, given the expected
earnings of their graduates. The
Department disagrees that the interest
rates used to calculate D/E rates do not
relate to the actual rates of the student
loan portfolio. We do not attempt to
average the interest rates of the actual
loans of student in the completion
cohort, but rather take a simpler
approach of taking an average of the
interest rates on Direct loans over a span
of years when completers were likely to
borrow. This simpler approach yields
much greater transparency and
predictability to institutions in how
their D/E rates will be determined,
while still being likely to accurately
reflect borrowing costs in most cases.
Changes: None.
Comments: Commenters suggested
that the Department use the same
amortization period for all programs.
These commenters argued that when
borrowers repay over a longer period,
this is a sign that the debt is less
affordable. Specifically, commenters
argued that the 10-year standard should
be used across programs regardless of
level.
Discussion: Section 668.403(b),
provides for three different amortization
periods, based on the credential level of
the program for determining a program’s
annual loan payment amount. This
schedule will account for the fact that
borrowers who enrolled in highercredentialed programs (e.g., bachelor’s
and graduate degree programs) are likely
to have incurred more loan debt than
borrowers who enrolled in lowercredentialed programs and, as a result,
are more likely to select a repayment
plan that would allow for a longer
repayment period. The longer periods
for higher level programs also
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70050
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
correspond empirically with the fact
that borrowers in longer programs tend
to take more time to repay. A further
benefit of the longer amortization period
for longer programs is that it provides
some adjustment for the fact that longer
programs often have higher earnings
growth beyond the 3-year period used to
measure earnings for most programs. As
noted above, waiting longer to measure
earnings results in the data being more
backward looking and less recent. The
longer amortization period provides
some adjustment without sacrificing the
recency of the metric’s availability.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter proposed
that the Department use a fixed interest
rate to calculate median debt for the D/
E rates. The commenter noted that
interest rates are out of the control of the
institution and not an indicator of
education quality. The commenter
proposed that a fixed interest rate be
used with the most generous loan
payment option available to students in
the cohort.
Discussion: The D/E rates are
designed to indicate whether graduates
can afford to repay their educational
debt. Therefore, the calculation uses
interest rates over the years that
students were likely to have borrowed
to calculate median debt, since those
interest rates affect the debt service
costs that students will need to pay.
Changes: None.
IDR and Debt Payment Calculations
Comments: Several commenters
argued that the Department should
consider income-based repayment
options available to students in the D/
E rates calculation. A few commenters
noted the loan payment calculation
used for the D/E rates is substantially
higher than the real monthly payments
that borrowers are subject to because of
these repayment programs. To improve
accuracy of this estimate, and fairness of
the regulation, these commenters
suggested the Department use expected
payments under an income-driven
repayment (IDR) plan for D/E rates
calculations. By not including
repayment plans, these commenters
asserted that there is a misconception
about the ability of an institutions’
graduates to satisfactorily make their
loan payments.
A few other commenters argued that
the availability of income-based and
income-driven repayment programs
makes all student debt affordable. The
same commenters argued that as long as
these programs exist (and students
enroll in these programs) the D/E metric
is not necessary because all student debt
is affordable to students through these
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
repayment plans. One of these
commenters argued that use of the D/E
rates to indicate affordability is
therefore arbitrary and capricious
because loan payments for students in
repayment plans do not the measures of
debt used in the D/E metric. Several
commenters noted that the availability
of the Revised Pay as You Earn
(REPAYE) program renders the D/E rates
misleading since no borrower is actually
required to pay off loans under a
standard repayment plan.
Similarly, another commenter
suggested that the D/E measure should
incorporate loan repayment programs
such as the National Health Service
Corps Loan Repayment Program (LRP),
Indian Health Service LRP, Health
Professions LRP, and the Veterans
Affairs Specialty Education LRP.
According to this commenter, failure to
consider these repayment programs may
adversely affect medical schools whose
students commit to public service.
Discussion: As we noted in the
NPRM, income-based and incomedriven repayment programs partially
shield borrowers from the risks of not
being able to repay their loans.
However, such after-the-fact protections
do not address underlying program
failures to prepare students for gainful
employment in the first place, and they
exacerbate the impact of such failures
on taxpayers as a whole when borrowers
are unable to pay. Not all borrowers
participate in these repayment plans;
where they do, the risks of nonpayment
shift to taxpayers when borrowers’
payments are not sufficient to fully pay
back the loans they borrowed. This is
because borrowers with persistently low
incomes who enroll in IDR—and
thereby make payments based on a
share of their income that can be as low
as $0—will see their remaining balances
forgiven at taxpayer expense after a
specified number of years (e.g., 20 or 25)
in repayment. For these reasons, the
Department disagrees with the
commenters who believe that no debt
limit should matter for the D/E metric
to make the program affordable to
students.
As explained in the NPRM, the
purpose of the D/E rates is to assess
whether program completers are able to
afford their debt, including program
completers who do not enroll in IDR or
other repayment plans intended to help
protect students from excessive
payments. The Department recognizes
that some repayment plans we offer
allow borrowers to repay their loans as
a fraction of their income, and that this
fraction is lower for some plans than the
rate used to calculate the D/E rates.
However, we decline to set acceptable
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
program standards at a rate that would
allow institutions to encumber students
with even more debt while expecting
taxpayers to pay more for poor
outcomes related to the educational
programs offered by institutions.
Instead, we view the D/E rates as an
appropriate measure of what students
can borrow and feasibly repay. Put
another way, under the D/E rates
calculation, the maximum amount of
borrowing is a function of students’
earnings that would leave the typical
program graduate in a position to pay
off their debt without having to rely on
payment programs like income-driven
repayment plans.
The Department understands that
other debt repayment plans for
particular fields exist as well, but views
these analogously to the Department’s
own IDR plans. Moreover, these loan
repayment programs, while generous,
affect only a small fraction of borrowers.
For example, in fiscal year 2021, the
National Health Service Corps made
fewer than 7,000 new Loan Repayment
Program awards and the Nurse Corps
made about 1,600 LRP awards.142 The
Association of American Medical
Colleges estimates that there were about
21,000 graduates of US medical schools
in per year in the most recent few
academic years, and during the same
time period, the number of first time
candidates taking the national Nurse
Licensing Exam (NCLEX–RN) has
totaled over 160,000 annually.143 This
means that these loan repayment
programs are used by only a fraction of
students.
Changes: None.
D/E Metric
Support
Comments: Two commenters noted
that the D/E metric is a critical means
to identify programs that do not serve
142 The NHSC Loan Repayment Program (LRP)
currently includes LRP programs for clinicians
working at Indian Health Services facilities. See
Indian Health Service (n.d.). NHSC Loan
Repayment Program. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services Indian Health Service (retrieved
from https://www.ihs.gov/loanrepayment/nhscloan-repayment-program/). U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Health Resources and
Services Administration (2021). Report to Congress:
National Health Service Corps for the Year 2021
(available at https://bhw.hrsa.gov/sites/default/
files/bureau-health-workforce/about-us/reports-tocongress/report-congress-nhsc-2021.pdf).
143 See Association of American Medical Colleges
(2022). 2022 FACTS: Enrollment, Graduates, and
MD-Ph.D. Data (https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/
students-residents/data/2022-facts-enrollmentgraduates-and-md-Ph.D.-data). National Council of
State Boards of Nursing (2023). 2022 NCLEX®
Examination Statistics (Vol. 86). National Council
of State Boards of Nursing, Inc. ISBN 979–8–
9854828–2–9 (retrieved from www.ncsbn.org/
public-files/2022_NCLEXExamStats-final.pdf).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
students. According to these
commenters, it will help protect
students, particularly students from
marginalized communities, from
entering low-value programs.
Discussion: We thank commenters for
their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted
that D/E rates can be accurately and
rapidly calculated using data available
to the Department, are easy for students
and institutions to understand, and are
hard for institutions to manipulate or
circumvent.
Discussion: We thank the commenter
for their support.
Changes: None.
General Opposition
Comments: One commenter noted
that graduate students are sophisticated
and should be able to make decisions on
their own based on evaluating costs and
benefits. Allowing the Federal
Government to signal its opinion or
remove funding unfairly limits a
student’s right to choose the program
according to this commenter.
Another commenter suggested that
the D/E measure should not apply to
graduate programs, since their
undergraduate experiences affect future
earnings.
Discussion: Graduate debt is growing
as a share of Federal borrowing. While
we might hope that graduate students’
relative sophistication would result in
fewer students taking on unaffordable
debt, the data described in the RIA show
that many graduate programs still lead
to unaffordable debt. This problem may
partially be addressed by the
transparency provisions in subpart Q of
these final regulations, which would for
the first time produce accurate
information on the net prices of
graduate degree programs to better
inform students about costs. Given the
very high debt levels associated with
some graduate programs, however, we
seek to protect borrowers and taxpayers
from all programs that consistently
leave most of their graduates with
unaffordable debts. Among non-GE
programs, we will provide D/E and EP
information to students and require
acknowledgments at high-debt-burden
programs to make sure students have
this information when they make their
choices. GE programs that consistently
leave students with high debt-burdens
will lose eligibility to participate in the
title IV, HEA programs.
With respect to the influence of
undergraduate experiences, students
pursue graduate education expecting
that they will benefit from additional
education. The rule requires
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
measurement only of the debt students
acquire at the graduate level when
measuring the D/E rates of graduate
programs yet credits the program with
the entirety of a students’ earnings (as
opposed to the increment to those
earnings added by attending the
graduate program). Regardless of the
extent to which students’ undergraduate
experience influences their earnings,
their graduate debt should be affordable
given what they can earn following
program completion.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
contended that the rule rewards low
graduation rate programs with higher
typical salaries than would be the case
with an acceptable graduation rate.
According to this commenter, the
Department should downward adjust
earnings levels for low graduation rate
programs and upward for higher
graduation rate programs.
Discussion: The median debt and
earnings information underlying the
metrics in the rule are based on
completers. For debt, the goal is to
capture the full amount students need to
borrow to obtain a credential. For
earnings, we use completers’ median
earnings to better reflect the value of
fully completing the program. While we
agree in principle that accounting for
completion rates may be additionally
useful, in practice it is infeasible to
measure program level completion
outcomes given that students often do
not enroll in a specific program at entry
(i.e., students enrolling in longer
programs with overlapping general
education requirements often begin
undeclared), making it impossible to
define completion cohorts. More
generally, we believe the measures as
defined are a reasonable compromise in
measuring the debt and labor market
costs of students who complete a
program—a group of students where
there can be less debate about whether
the program should be responsible for
their outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter proposed
that D/E should include other types of
debt, such as automobile loans and
credit cards.
Discussion: The Department cannot
definitively tie non-student loan debt
that students acquire, such as
automobile loans and credit card debt,
to the student’s pursuit of a degree. The
D/E metric aims to measure how well a
GE program prepares students for
gainful employment in a recognized
occupation. Data on the other debt
students might incur is not readily
available to us and, more importantly, is
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70051
outside of the scope of our regulatory
authority.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
warned that it is unclear how D/E is
calculated for undeclared students.
Discussion: The D/E rates are
calculated based only on students who
graduate from a program. Students
initially undeclared are counted in the
program where they graduate at a given
credential level, and the debt they
accumulate at that credential level is
included in their total debt.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
contended that the D/E metric prevents
institutions from developing new
programs, because an institution that
offers a new program will not have
students completing within 6 years.
Discussion: In instances where a
program does not have data to calculate
the D/E rates, such as for a new
program, there would simply be no D/
E metric available. There are no
eligibility consequences for a program
with no D/E or EP rates available.
Additionally, we do not believe the rule
would discourage an institution from
creating new programs unless the
institution expected the program to
eventually lose eligibility due to highdebt burdens or low-earnings.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters argued
that it is unfair to not allow programs to
improve or reintroduce a program once
it has failed.
Another commenter contended that
the Department should not penalize an
institution if it responsibly ends a
program that produces failing D/E rates
in its final years.
Discussion: The rule allows
institution to report transitional D/E
rates based on median debt outcomes
for completers in the two most recent
award years for a temporary period.
This affords institutions the opportunity
to improve their programs in response
to the metrics produced for their
programs. After this transitional period
where institutions can improve their
measures, the metrics become more
backward-looking, so this opportunity is
diminished.
If a program loses eligibility under the
rule or if an institution voluntarily
discontinues a failing program, the
institution may not launch a similar
program for 3 years. As we discussed in
the NPRM, we intend for this waiting
period to protect the interests of
students and taxpayers by requiring that
institutions with failing GE programs
take meaningful corrective actions to
improve program outcomes before
reintroducing a similar program with
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70052
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Federal support. The 3-year period of
ineligibility closely aligns with the
ineligibility period associated with
failing the CDR, which is the
Department’s longstanding primary
outcomes-based accountability metric
on an institution-wide level.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed
concern about how D/E will be
calculated for colleges and programs
that do not participate in the Direct
Loan program due to the low cost of
tuition and fees.
Discussion: The median debt for
programs whose students receive no
Direct Loans will be zero. This means
that these programs will pass D/E.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested
that students already enrolled in a
failing program should be allowed to
receive title IV, HEA aid until they
complete the program.
Discussion: The Department is
sympathetic to the potential disruption
for students who may continue to be
enrolled in a program that loses title IV,
HEA eligibility. Institutions must issue
warnings to any student in or interested
in a program if the program fails one of
the GE metrics and, therefore, faces a
potential loss of Title IV, HEA eligibility
if it fails again. Hopefully this will both
allow students a chance to finish their
studies, at least in shorter programs, or
to make plans to transfer if the program
loses funding.
The Department believes, however
that most students will be better served
by transferring to a better performing
program rather than further
accumulating debt or spending time in
a program where they will be unlikely
to earn enough to manage it, or not
accumulate skills to earn more than a
high school graduate. Analyses
presented in the RIA suggest that most
students will have other better options
to which to transfer.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
contended that the GE rule should allow
for transitional D/E rates for GE
programs for a multiyear period after the
regulation takes effect.
Discussion: All programs will have
transitional rates that will be based on
the debt of completers in more recent
years for 6 years.
Changes: We have modified
§ 668.408(c) to give all programs the
option to report transitional rates for the
first six years after the rule is in effect.
While we believe that most institutions
with GE programs have experience
reporting similar information under the
2014 Prior Rule, this change offers
flexibility and alleviates burden for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
some institutions to avoid reporting on
cohorts that completed six years or more
previously.
Comments: One commenter
recommended that since the 2014 GE
rule only included the D/E metric,
passage of either D/E or EP should be
sufficient for establishing that a program
prepares students for gainful
employment. Other commenters
suggested that we require all programs
to pass both measures, instead of some
being required to just pass one.
Discussion: As we explain in the
NPRM 144 and elaborate upon above, the
EP measure captures distinct aspects of
how programs prepare students for
gainful employment. The EP is based in
part on statutory provisions ensuring
that postsecondary programs build on
the skills learned in high school and
enhance a students’ earnings capacity
regardless of how much they borrow.
Whatever students’ post-college
earnings are, it is important that their
debt levels are affordable and in
reasonable proportion to their earnings.
GE programs must pass both metrics to
avoid consequences. Career training
programs that fail either or both metrics
in a single year will be required to
provide warnings to students that the
programs could be at risk of losing
eligibility for title IV, HEA funds in
subsequent years. Programs that fail the
same metric in two of three consecutive
years would have lose their eligibility.
The two metrics together create the
strongest framework for protecting
students and taxpayers.
Comments: One commenter raised
concerns that institutions cannot
compel graduates to seek occupations in
the field for which they train.
Discussion: The purpose of these
regulations is to increase the likelihood
that students entering career training
programs are given the skills and
credentials to repay their student loans
and earn more than they would have
had they not attended a postsecondary
program. Many students may find
employment in an occupation that
differs from what the program prepared
them for, and we do not penalize
programs for that.
Changes: None.
Exclusion or Inclusion of Certain
Student Populations
Comments: One commenter
contended that the earnings component
of the D/E rates calculation should
exclude students who have a title IV,
HEA loan in military-related deferment
status. The commenter believed that
including outcomes for such students in
144 88
PO 00000
FR 32300, 32325 (May 19, 2023).
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the D/E rates would be arbitrary and
exceed the Department’s statutory
authority, because such students’
military earnings provide no
information about the quality of the
program. The commenter recommended
that the Department adopt the approach
in the 2014 Rule and exclude such
students.
Discussion: The Department
disagrees. As we acknowledged in the
NPRM, the D/E rates calculation in
these regulations differs from the 2014
Rule in certain respects. In the 2014
Prior Rule, the Department reasoned
that students with military deferments
should be excluded from the D/E rates
calculations because they could have
less earnings than if they had chosen to
work in the occupation for which they
received training. The final rule went on
to state a student’s decision to enlist in
the military is likely unrelated to
whether a program prepares students for
gainful employment, that it would be
unfair to assess a program’s performance
based on the outcomes of such students,
and that the Department believed that
this interest in fairness outweighed
potential impact on the earnings
calculations and the number of students
in the cohort period.145
However, we cannot now conclude
with confidence that the earnings of
military personnel are unrelated to the
postsecondary programs that they
completed. First, the latest Quadrennial
Review of Military Compensation
(QRMC) shows how strongly correlated
educational attainment is with pay
grade for both enlisted personnel and
officers. For example, in 2017 while
none of the enlisted personnel at the
lowest reported pay grade (E–2) had a
bachelor’s degree or more, 55 percent of
those in the highest pay grade for
enlisted personnel had at least a B.A.
Similarly, virtually all officers (91
percent) at the lowest pay grade had a
bachelor’s degree, while 80–100 percent
of the officers in the top pay grades had
an advanced degree, with that share
increasing with the pay grade.
Educational attainment is clearly a key
component of pay grade in the military,
and program quality is a key factor in
attainment.146
More broadly, program quality
determines the skills a student will
receive and have available to them on
the job. Whether that job is in the
military or in some other field with a
145 79
FR 64889, 64944–45 (Oct. 31, 2014).
tables 2.1 and 2.1 in Department of
Defense (2020). Report of the Thirteenth
Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation,
Volume I, Main Report (https://
militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/QRMC-Vol_1_
final_web.pdf).
146 See
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
step-and-lane-style pay schedule, skill is
still an important determinant of job
success and pay, if for no other reason
than more skilled employees (or
military personnel) have more
opportunities for advancement. That
can be as simple as promotion to
Officer, but it also includes
opportunities such as the military’s
opportunities for service members to be
trained in designated military skills or
career fields, which require special
advanced training or educational
credentials in key fields that military
seeks to promote. Training in these
fields can earn personnel a bonus upon
completion of their role, plus whatever
career advancement comes from a
military career in those valued fields.147
Furthermore, including these earners
would likely raise the median income
measured for their particular program
because this group of program
completers are demonstrably employed,
and because, as the latest QRMC
demonstrates, the military has long
sought to (and surpassed) a goal of
paying service members at a level
equivalent to the 70th percentile of
comparably educated and experienced
civilians. Nevertheless, there is still a
possibility that this group of program
completers may have earnings that do
not otherwise support the debt they
incurred. Servicemembers should
receive the same consumer protections
afforded to other student borrowers
from their GE program completer
cohort. Accordingly, the Department has
concluded that their earnings should be
reflected in the data that we use to
provide information about and evaluate
GE programs supported by title IV, HEA
student assistance. This conclusion is
reasonable and, as we explained in the
‘‘Reliance Interests’’ section of the
NPRM, this approach does not implicate
any significant reliance interests.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested
that the Department should consider
programs with fewer than 30 students as
‘‘passing due to insufficient data.’’ The
commenter contended that this label
may help to mitigate the incentive for
schools to cap program enrollment at 29
students.
Discussion: In principle, the
Department agrees that ‘‘passing due to
insufficient data’’ is one appropriate
label for programs that have too few
completers in the applicable cohort for
metrics to be issued. That label conveys
potentially helpful information, and we
147 Department of Defense, Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller) (n.d.). DoD 7000.14—R:
Military Pay Policy—Active Duty and Reserve Pay,
Volume 7A (https://comptroller.defense.gov/
Portals/45/documents/fmr/Volume_07a.pdf).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
may use that or similar language to
describe programs in the future. We
note that these rules specify the
conditions under which programs pass
or fail the D/E and EP metrics
(§ 668.402), along with the conditions
under which the Department does not
issue the D/E rates or the EP measure
because of an insufficient number of
completers (§§ 668.403(f) and
668.404(d)). Those rules do not require
the Department to use particular labels
to describe programs that are subject to
these metrics. At the appropriate times
and consistent with these rules, the
Department will make the necessary
choices regarding the details of the
Department’s program information
website, through which student
acknowledgments will be administered
(§§ 668.407(b) and 668.605(c)(3), (g)), as
well as the warnings with respect to GE
programs (§ 668.605).
Changes: None.
Comments: One comment expressed
concern about how to calculate the data
for students that do not complete their
program of study because they choose to
enter the workforce once they gain a
certification in a program.
Discussion: Students who do not earn
a credential are not counted in the
earnings or debt metrics for a program.
If a student does not complete an
associate degree after obtaining a
certificate, that student would be
counted in the completer cohort for the
certificate program. We may expect that
student’s earnings would be less than
their earnings would have been if they
completed the associate program, but so,
too, would their debt. Regardless, we
expect the majority of students
completing a certificate to out-earn
individuals with only a high-school
diploma and to not have a high debtburden.
Changes: None.
Discretionary D/E Measures
Comments: One commenter posited
that D/E has a low correlation with a
measure of return on investment (ROI)
that the commenter themself created.
The commenter then compares pass/fail
under GE to pass/fail under their
personal formula to assign whether they
think a program ‘‘correctly’’ or
‘‘incorrectly’’ passes or fails. The
commenter uses such comparisons to
recommend changing amortization
periods for graduate students and that
the D/E rate should be assessed on the
basis of the annual earnings rate alone.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s suggestions, and analysis
of how this rule’s parameters could be
modified to better align its pass/fail
outcomes with the commenter’s own
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70053
estimates of program-level ROI.
However, there are numerous issues
with the commenter’s methodology that
do not make it an appropriate standard
for judging whether the metrics used
and pass/fail outcomes in GE are
‘‘correct’’ or ‘‘incorrect.’’ This includes
several self-acknowledged reasons why
the methodology systematically
overestimates or underestimates ROI for
different types of programs, and
assumptions that students’ earnings
trajectories relative to their peers do not
change over time. In addition, the
commenter’s attempt to create
counterfactual wages relies on
adjustments made on very broad
educational credential by field of study
groups that do not reflect specific
programs well.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
argued that the evidence cited for the
use of the 20 percent discretionary
income threshold is not strong. Several
commenters note that the 20 percent
discretionary D/E threshold can be
traced back to a 2006 report from
Economists Sandy Baum and Saul
Schwartz. The commenters asserted that
discretionary income is always defined
arbitrarily (i.e., attempts to draw
distinctions between discretionary and
nondiscretionary expenditures are
fraught with difficulty). Other
commenters contended that the (annual)
D/E threshold is based on affordability
of mortgage rates and should not be
used for student debt.
Discussion: As the commenters noted,
the 20 percent discretionary D/E
threshold is based on research
conducted by Sandy Baum and Saul
Schwartz. Their research proposed
benchmarks for manageable debt levels,
and the authors’ research suggested that
no student should have loan payments
exceeding 20 percent of their
discretionary income. In subsequent
commentary one of the authors argued
that, if anything, a 20 percent
discretionary threshold for the median
borrower is too permissive and a stricter
standard would be justified.148
Although the starting point for their
research was in the context of the
affordability of mortgage rates, their
overall point stands—that it would not
be affordable for borrowers to have
student debt-service ratios beyond what
is in the GE rule.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked
how a school could pass the
discretionary debt-to-earnings rate and
148 See https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/devosmisrepresents-evidence-seeking-gainfulemployment-deregulation.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70054
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
not the annual debt to earnings measure.
According to this commenter, if
reasonable scenarios do not exist, this
ratio is irrelevant and does not provide
a reasonable additional option to
schools.
Discussion: We carefully explain the
relationship between the two rates in
the NPRM (see Figure 1 from the NPRM
and the surrounding text). Many
programs with higher levels of earnings
pass the discretionary D/E measure but
not the annual D/E measure.
Changes: None.
D/E Rates Thresholds
Comments: A few commenters argued
that the thresholds align with other
measures of hardship: Borrowers with
student loan payments above 8 percent
of income or 20 percent of discretionary
income experienced greater hardship
than those with payments below these
thresholds.
Discussion: We thank the commenters
for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters
requested that the Department return to
the D/E rate thresholds of 12 percent
annual D/E and 30 percent annual
discretionary D/E that were used in the
2011 and 2014 Prior Rules. Some of
these commenters posited that the
changes from those thresholds to the D/
E rate threshold in the NPRM is
arbitrary and capricious.
Several other commenters objected to
the lack of inclusion of the ‘‘zone’’ as in
the 2014 Prior Rule, asserting that
without the zone, programs could fail
because of fractions of a dollar in the GE
calculation or that programs do not have
the space to make necessary program
changes.
Discussion: The Department
considered these concerns and decided
to base the thresholds upon expert
recommendations and mortgage
industry practice—that is, the 8 and 20
percent thresholds for annual and
discretionary D/E, respectively. The 12
and 30 percent thresholds used in the
‘‘zone’’ were selected by adding a 50
percent buffer to these evidence-based
thresholds, so as to give institutions that
were ‘‘close’’ to the D/E thresholds an
additional year to potentially improve
their performance.
In the final rule, the Department has
adopted a transition period where
institutions can report debt information
for more recent completion cohorts.
This provision is similar to a transition
provision that was included in the 2014
Prior Rule under 34 CFR 668.404(g) that
permitted institutions to use updated
program costs in the outcome
calculations for 5 to 7 award years,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
depending upon the length of the
program. The transition period for these
regulations will allow any
improvements in the cost structure of
programs to more rapidly be reflected in
institutions’ D/E rates.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters stated
that the 8 percent annual D/E threshold
would preclude for-profits from offering
BAs and eliminate many Associate of
Arts (AA) programs. The commenters
believe these institutions will be forced
to lower tuition; therefore, this imposes
a price cap on for-profit and vocational
institutions.
Discussion: Programs must pass either
the annual D/E threshold of 8 percent or
the discretionary D/E threshold of 20
percent. For programs with higher
income levels, the discretionary rate is
more likely to apply, which allows
median debt levels to be higher relative
to median earnings levels. The RIA
shows that the majority of proprietary
associate and bachelor’s programs do
not fail the D/E metrics. We disagree
with the commenters’ assertion that
institutions will be forced to lower
tuition to pass the D/E rates, as the final
rule allows institutions to set tuition or
find additional student resources so that
students’ borrowing levels are
reasonable in light of their typical
earnings outcomes and so that students
do not take on more debt than they can
reasonably manage.
Changes: None.
Programs With Low Borrowing Rates
Comments: Some commenters
suggested that the Department should
not subject programs with only a few
borrowers to the D/E metric or should
use a different metric for them.
According to this commenter, a program
with a small percentage of borrowers
overall that does not meet the debt to
earnings ratio would jeopardize the Pell
Grant eligibility for the entire program.
Discussion: Programs with few
borrowers are very unlikely to fail the
D/E rates measure. We calculate median
debt among all title IV, HEA recipients,
including those who receive only Pell
grants. As a result, if the majority of
program completers do not borrow, the
median debt of program completers will
be zero. The program will, therefore,
pass the D/E metric. This acknowledges
the affordability of programs where
many or most students do not need to
borrow to attend the program. As a
result, we see no risk that programs with
few borrowers will lose title IV, HEA
eligibility as a result of the D/E
provisions of rule.
Changes: None.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Comments: One commenter believed
that non-borrowers will not look at the
D/E ratios because they are not relevant
to them.
Discussion: The D/E metric is
primarily a measure of debt
affordability, capturing the share of a
typical graduate’s annual earnings that
will need to be devoted to loan
payments. Under the transparency
provisions in § 668.407, only
prospective students will provide
acknowledgments prior to enrolling in
an institution. While ultimately those
with no intention of borrowing may not
be concerned with potential loan
payments, prospective students may
find information about the D/E rates of
different programs helpful as an
indicator of the labor market success of
those programs’ graduates, the costs of
the programs, or both. More
importantly, the information may
inform their choice of whether to enroll
in the program, and if so whether to
borrow to attend. The rule will create
more transparency on earnings
outcomes and the net price of programs,
however, and we expect that nonborrowers will find that information
most salient. Moreover, we also expect
the D/E ratios to be relevant to
borrowers.
Changes: None.
Earnings Premium Metric
General
Comments: Many commenters
expressed support for the EP measure as
a ‘‘common sense’’ threshold to measure
completer earnings against.
Discussion: We thank commenters for
their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters
suggested that the EP measure is
arbitrary, not sufficiently studied, and
not backed by research evidence.
Discussion: The Department believes
that the EP threshold, which uses the
median State-level earnings of high
school graduates in the labor force, is an
intuitive benchmark for both
policymakers and prospective students.
Comparison to the earnings of those
with only a high school diploma has
long been a measure of the effectiveness
or value of completing a given postsecondary credential in research
literature.149
149 See for example, see Goldin, Claudia & Katz,
Lawrence F. (2010). The Race Between Education
and Technology. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Baum, Sandy (2014). The Higher Education
Earnings Premium. Urban Institute (www.urban.org/
sites/default/files/publication/22316/413033Higher-Education-Earnings-Premium-ValueVariation-and-Trends.PDF)—among other
numerous examples.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested
that the EP threshold should be higher
to account for a student’s need to repay
the loan debt incurred in connection
with the credential.
Discussion: The Department
recognizes that calculating a ‘‘net
earnings premium’’ that subtracts from
the EP some measure of the (amortized
yearly) costs of college or debt service
payments may provide a reasonable
measure of the financial gain to
completing a program in some contexts.
However, under the rule, we will use
the EP measure to assess whether
students who complete a program are
better off, strictly in terms of their
earnings, than individuals who never
attended a postsecondary program. The
calculation of this measure is unaffected
by the costs students might incur to
attend the program. The measure
applies even for a student whose
education expenses might be entirely
covered by grant aid. We note that the
D/E rates are intended to assess a
cohort’s ability to afford the debt they
borrow to pay the direct costs of
attending the program, so we do not
additionally account for program costs
in the EP measure.
Changes: None.
Earnings and Location
Comments: Many commenters
suggested that earnings vary
substantially within a given State by
urbanicity. These commenters suggested
that we adjust the D/E rates or EP
calculations for programs serving
students in rural areas. Some other
commenters suggested using
metropolitan or micropolitan statistical
areas (MSAs) to better distinguish
between earnings potential for
completers within a given State.
Discussion: Though many
commenters expressed concerns about
urban/rural divides in economic
opportunity, their proposed solutions
often involved calculating earnings
premiums at the metropolitan area level.
There are a few reasons the Department
sees this as a flawed approach. First, as
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Bulletin No. 23–01 outlines, Core
Based Statistical Areas, such as
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)
‘‘do not equate to an urban-rural
classification; many counties and
county-equivalents included in
Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Statistical Areas, and many other
counties, contain both urban and rural
territory and populations.’’ 150 There is
plenty of variety in the urban character
of local areas even within area
designations as small as the MSA, and
so calculating earnings estimates at that
level may not capture differences in
labor market opportunities by
population density or other
characteristics of an area often
associated with the urban/rural divide.
The same OMB bulletin further warns
that, in keeping with the Metropolitan
Areas Protection and Standardization
(MAPS) Act of 2021, agencies should be
hesitant to use CBSA designations for
the administration or regulation of nonstatistical programs and policies. Our
70055
view is that while MSAs provide a
useful approximation to major and
minor urban centers in a State, they do
not measure a relevant unit for the
purposes of this regulation. This is
especially true in the context of
postsecondary education, where
students often travel outside of their
home MSA to attend school and, as a
result, are likely to have considerable
cross-MSA mobility after graduation.
Our view is informed by an analysis
the Department conducted to assess the
viability of measuring earnings at the
metropolitan area level. To understand
the implications of such a change, we
first examined how the earnings
threshold would vary across each State
if it varied for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. The IPUMS USA
version of the ACS 5-year sample for
2019 adds the necessary information to
the PUMS data to divide households
into different geographic classifications
based on the metropolitan status of the
area they live in, which the IPUMS USA
describes in this way: ‘‘[the relevant
field] indicates whether the household
resided within a metropolitan area and,
for households in metropolitan areas,
whether the household resided within
or outside of a central/principal city.’’
Table 1.4 below shows how earnings
thresholds would vary if they were set
at the median earnings for the same
population (high school graduates aged
25–34 who were in the labor force in the
previous year), divided by which type of
metropolitan area those individuals live
in.
TABLE 1.4—MEDIAN INCOME FOR HS GRADS 25–34 IN LABOR FORCE, BY STATE AND METRO STATUS
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Metropolitan status
Alabama .............................................................
Alaska ................................................................
Arizona ...............................................................
Arkansas ............................................................
California ............................................................
Colorado .............................................................
Connecticut ........................................................
Delaware ............................................................
District Of Columbia ...........................................
Florida ................................................................
Georgia ..............................................................
Hawaii ................................................................
Idaho ..................................................................
Illinois .................................................................
Indiana ...............................................................
Iowa ....................................................................
Kansas ...............................................................
Kentucky ............................................................
150 Executive Office of the President, Office of
Management and Budget (2023). Revised
Delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Mixed met.
status
Not in
met. area
In met. area:
central city
In met.
area: not
central city
Met. area:
mixed central
city status
21,582
30,000
21,582
22,527
....................
27,500
....................
....................
....................
22,373
24,000
30,000
23,883
25,036
27,000
30,000
25,569
26,073
23,000
21,307
18,111
21,902
25,000
30,000
31,961
....................
....................
21,582
22,700
26,330
28,000
26,073
27,699
26,073
24,819
22,945
21,177
29,675
26,000
........................
26,073
27,000
22,000
........................
21,582
22,445
24,000
26,978
........................
22,297
24,503
29,202
23,438
20,221
29,202
........................
26,471
30,000
26,178
30,107
29,202
26,634
........................
24,819
25,030
30,245
28,600
26,634
28,000
........................
30,544
25,359
22,445
..........................
25,453
25,569
26,073
29,322
25,899
25,453
..........................
24,000
23,000
31,288
25,453
25,000
24,842
28,000
26,073
23,012
Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined
Statistical Areas, and Guidance on Uses of the
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Overall
22,602
27,489
25,453
24,000
26,073
29,000
26,634
26,471
21,582
24,000
24,435
30,000
26,073
25,030
26,073
28,507
25,899
24,397
Delineations of These Areas (OMB Bulletin No. 23–
01). Washington, DC.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70056
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1.4—MEDIAN INCOME FOR HS GRADS 25–34 IN LABOR FORCE, BY STATE AND METRO STATUS—Continued
Metropolitan status
Mixed met.
status
Not in
met. area
In met. area:
central city
In met.
area: not
central city
Met. area:
mixed central
city status
Louisiana ............................................................
Maine .................................................................
Maryland ............................................................
Massachusetts ...................................................
Michigan .............................................................
Minnesota ...........................................................
Mississippi ..........................................................
Missouri ..............................................................
Montana .............................................................
Nebraska ............................................................
Nevada ...............................................................
New Hampshire .................................................
New Jersey ........................................................
New Mexico .......................................................
New York ...........................................................
North Carolina ....................................................
North Dakota ......................................................
Ohio ....................................................................
Oklahoma ...........................................................
Oregon ...............................................................
Pennsylvania ......................................................
Rhode Island ......................................................
South Carolina ...................................................
South Dakota .....................................................
Tennessee .........................................................
Texas .................................................................
Utah ....................................................................
Vermont ..............................................................
Virginia ...............................................................
Washington ........................................................
West Virginia ......................................................
Wisconsin ...........................................................
Wyoming ............................................................
26,073
....................
26,634
26,073
23,988
30,000
21,000
25,000
25,030
29,783
23,417
31,961
....................
19,548
26,000
23,000
33,598
24,435
25,030
23,988
25,453
....................
24,718
30,000
23,438
25,899
26,471
....................
25,453
27,534
21,582
30,000
27,082
26,500
25,453
....................
....................
23,740
27,116
20,562
23,988
25,453
29,800
31,961
28,057
....................
26,741
24,405
22,661
27,116
25,569
25,453
23,000
26,073
....................
20,362
25,030
22,900
25,000
30,215
25,000
20,566
25,300
22,661
29,617
31,961
20,024
........................
22,900
28,000
17,000
25,569
17,613
21,307
........................
21,307
25,030
28,057
23,438
20,400
24,700
22,399
........................
18,326
25,453
25,569
21,307
23,417
........................
........................
19,500
24,405
19,709
........................
25,000
30,000
........................
22,160
........................
26,386
29,830
29,136
30,000
25,030
31,154
25,569
25,575
........................
34,092
27,489
36,652
27,325
20,859
26,978
23,417
........................
26,073
27,800
29,800
27,806
26,978
25,860
........................
26,438
28,000
29,202
........................
27,699
31,961
30,544
27,116
........................
21,000
21,798
26,500
30,349
24,000
27,116
19,963
26,471
28,159
25,782
27,387
32,373
23,620
25,453
25,000
23,417
27,116
23,000
26,000
24,435
25,030
30,000
22,900
29,202
23,824
25,899
28,765
30,215
24,435
29,202
24,196
28,507
..........................
24,290
26,073
26,978
29,830
23,438
29,136
20,859
25,000
25,453
27,000
27,387
30,215
26,222
24,503
25,453
23,300
31,294
24,000
25,569
25,030
25,569
26,634
23,438
28,000
23,438
25,899
28,507
26,200
25,569
29,525
23,438
27,699
30,544
Total ............................................................
25,453
25,000
24,280
26,654
25,453
25,453
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Table 1.4 illustrates the challenge of
this approach. To the extent that the
commenters’ main concern about Statelevel earnings thresholds is that
institutions located outside of
metropolitan areas would be
disadvantaged, the data does not bear
this out. In many instances, such as
Alabama, Colorado, and Illinois, the
earnings threshold outside of
metropolitan areas would be higher than
the current statewide standard
(displayed in the ‘‘Overall’’ column).
Because many low-income people live
in cities, it is not consistently the case
that metropolitan areas or central cities
have higher median incomes for high
school graduates than non-metropolitan
areas. What is more, this pattern is not
consistent across States, suggesting
there is not a systematic disadvantage
for non-metropolitan areas that would
justify switching to another standard
that would have its own disadvantages.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
suggested using a school’s location in a
Persistent Poverty County as an
additional EP consideration. These
commenters proposed that we could
exclude schools located in these
counties prior to the effective date of the
GE rule from application of the EP
measure, or we could adjust the EP
threshold for programs in such counties
downward by 20 percent.
Overall
Discussion: To understand the
implications of this proposal, we
assessed whether each program would
be exempt based on being located in a
Persistent Poverty County. To do this,
we assigned each program to a county
based on the location of its main
campus and then determined whether
that county was one of the 341 the
Census Bureau determined to be
persistently poor. We then examined
which institutions, and which major
cities housed institutions that would be
exempt from the EP measure if we
modified the rule in this way. Below is
a list of the 15 largest institutions
located in a county that is Persistently
Poor under the Census’s definition:
LARGEST INSTITUTIONS WITH MAIN CAMPUSES IN PERSISTENT POVERTY COUNTIES IN TERMS OF ENROLLMENT
6-Digit
OPEID
Institution name
University of Florida ........................................................................................
Temple University ............................................................................................
Fresno City College .........................................................................................
University of Georgia .......................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
1535
3371
1307
1598
Sfmt 4700
Total
enrollment
Number of
programs
45,996
40,537
40,431
35,589
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
324
255
114
296
10OCR2
Location
Gainesville, FL.
Philadelphia, PA.
Fresno, CA.
Athens, GA.
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
70057
LARGEST INSTITUTIONS WITH MAIN CAMPUSES IN PERSISTENT POVERTY COUNTIES IN TERMS OF ENROLLMENT—
Continued
6-Digit
OPEID
Institution name
Texas A&M University .....................................................................................
Ohio University ................................................................................................
El Paso Community College ...........................................................................
University of Texas Rio Grande Valley ...........................................................
West Virginia University ..................................................................................
Georgia Southern University ...........................................................................
East Carolina University ..................................................................................
Brigham Young University—Idaho ..................................................................
Central Michigan University ............................................................................
University of Texas at El Paso ........................................................................
This list is a clear signal that the
Persistent Poverty County exemption
would be poorly targeted from the
perspective of identifying institutions
facing insurmountable economic
conditions that would merit exemption
from the general standard laid out in the
NPRM. A number of the institutions on
this list are major State flagship
institutions with a strong track record of
graduating large numbers of students
Total
enrollment
3632
3100
10387
3599
3827
1572
2923
1625
2243
3661
into stable and well-remunerated
employment, suggesting that being
located in these counties is not in fact
outcome determinative for students in
such institutions. The exercise reveals a
limitation of the approach more
generally, which is that these
institutions draw on students from a
variety of different locations, and their
graduates go on to work in many
Number of
programs
34,089
33,722
31,413
30,710
30,592
30,141
30,021
29,243
28,126
27,759
252
190
81
121
192
111
172
84
150
141
Location
College Station, TX.
Athens, OH.
El Paso, TX.
Edinburg, TX.
Morgantown, WV.
Statesboro, GA.
Greenville, NC.
Rexburg, ID.
Mt Pleasant, MI.
El Paso, TX.
different places outside the county
where the institution is located.
An additional datapoint that reveals
that this measure of county poverty may
not well capture economic conditions
that dramatically impede labor market
success for college graduates is the list
of the 15 cities in Persistent Poverty
Counties with the largest enrollment
across all institutions and programs
located there:
TOP CITIES IN PERSISTENT POVERTY COUNTIES IN TERMS OF ENROLLMENT
Total
enrollment
City
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Philadelphia, PA ......................................................................................................................................................
Fresno, CA ...............................................................................................................................................................
Brooklyn, NY ............................................................................................................................................................
El Paso, TX ..............................................................................................................................................................
New Orleans, LA .....................................................................................................................................................
Gainesville, FL .........................................................................................................................................................
Bronx, NY ................................................................................................................................................................
Baltimore, MD ..........................................................................................................................................................
Athens, GA ..............................................................................................................................................................
College Station, TX ..................................................................................................................................................
Athens, OH ..............................................................................................................................................................
Richmond, VA ..........................................................................................................................................................
Statesboro, GA ........................................................................................................................................................
Morgantown, WV .....................................................................................................................................................
Edinburg, TX ............................................................................................................................................................
This list includes a number of the
country’s largest cities, as well as a
number of college towns. This gives us
pause for two reasons: first, the
inclusion of major cities with both a
high incidence of poverty and vibrant
economies suggests that the Persistent
Poverty County construct is not
designed to capture the kind of withincounty inequality that allows deep
poverty to coexist with strong labor
markets for college graduates. Second,
the existence of so many college towns
suggests that the measurement of
Persistent Poverty Counties may partly
be picking up places where a large
fraction of the area’s residents are
students who are in school and
therefore not in the labor force or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
working only part time, perhaps
exaggerating the true extent of poverty
in the area, or at least not reflecting its
likely transience for the individuals
being measured, who can expect a
significant increase in their standard of
living once they graduate from
college.151 Additionally, in such cases
we would not expect this more transient
poverty measured in college towns to be
an impediment to the earnings trajectory
of students after college.
Changes: None.
151 See the Census’s own analysis of poverty
measurement in college towns here:
www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/10/offcampus-college-students-poverty.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
147,782
74,385
72,679
64,957
58,608
57,652
57,528
51,202
40,123
34,089
33,722
33,323
32,570
30,824
30,710
Total number
of programs
1,300
352
340
254
532
379
301
542
363
252
190
257
163
201
121
Economic Swings
Comments: Several commenters
expressed concern about how earnings
data would be affected by rapid
downturns in the economy. Their
concerns largely regarded the lag
between the economic conditions at the
time students incur their debts and
when the earnings are assessed. Other
commenters argued that the EP
threshold could not accurately account
for the labor market impact of national
events, such as a pandemic, or for more
localized labor market events, such as a
natural disaster.
Discussion: The Department
recognizes that economic conditions can
change rapidly, that the earnings
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70058
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
premium for a program during a
booming economy may differ from that
premium during a downturn, and that
students often make decisions about
their educational investments without a
full picture of the economy they will
graduate into. Nonetheless, we believe
the uncertainty around the broader
economic conditions provides more
reason to monitor and enforce rules
around the economic outcomes for
students who graduate from a given
program through the EP measure. One
benefit of a college education is some
degree of insulation from economic
downturns, and an important measure
of program quality is the robustness of
its graduates’ employment outcomes to
economic shocks.
The EP threshold is well suited to
adjust to State or national disruptions to
the labor market. The earnings of high
school graduates tend to be much more
pro-cyclical than those of college
graduates. That suggests that the EP
threshold will tend to fall more in
economic downturns than will the
median earnings of college graduates,
therefore buffering the impact on
program outcomes. It is possible that the
EP threshold may not adjust for more
localized labor market shocks at the subState level. The Secretary may, however,
have authority under statute to waive or
modify regulatory provisions that apply
to institutions in disaster areas or that
are significantly affected by disasters.152
The Department is not convinced that
the rules here should be further adapted
to address such exceptional
circumstances.
Changes: None.
The Department recognizes the logic
of this approach, but also has identified
some substantial disadvantages. For
example, the data do not have enough
individuals in the sample to provide
robust State-level estimates of median
earnings for all fields of study. Further,
the use of comparable undergraduate
earnings relies on the assumption that
those who seek a post-baccalaureate
credential have a bachelor’s degree in a
similar field. This may not be the case,
however, particularly for degrees that
are less reliant on the attainment of a
specific set of undergraduate
prerequisites. We currently lack
comprehensive information on the
bachelor’s degrees typically obtained by
graduate students in each field. The
Department believes that using the same
standard for the EP for graduate
programs provides some degree of
protection from programs not meeting
even this low bar.
Changes: None.
ACS Earnings Measures
Comments: At least one commenter
suggested that because the ACS relies on
self-reported earnings, rather than on
administrative data, these earnings
metrics are not comparable.
Discussion: The ACS is a commonly
used source of data on the experiences
of a representative sample of Americans
and a provider of many key economic
indicators used by governments and
researchers throughout the country. The
Census Bureau regularly reviews the
accuracy of the data. The survey relies
on decades of experience from
nationally recognized experts to develop
and constantly improve the quality of
Earnings Threshold for Graduate
the information provided through these
Programs
surveys. The U.S. Census Bureau has
Comments: A few commenters
researched the accuracy of ACS income
suggested using a different EP threshold data and found that income data from
for programs that issue graduate
the ACS corresponds well with
degrees. One suggestion was that we use administratively reported earnings
the median earnings of bachelor’s
measures (e.g., via employer provided
degree recipients who majored in the
W2 forms) in IRS records.153 The ACS
same field as the graduate degree.
is the best available data to measure the
Discussion: The 2019 5-year American State-level earnings by education level
Community Survey (ACS) contains
used in the construction of the earnings
information on bachelor’s degree fields
threshold and the commenter did not
for survey respondents. These data are
provide an alternative source for
available in broad categories that
comparable data.
generally align with similar CIP
Changes: None.
categories. The median earnings for
Comments: One commenter noted
those age 25–34 in the labor force with
that recent earnings gains have been
a bachelor’s degree and a recorded
largely among those in the labor force
major category is around $46,000,
without a post-secondary credential.
reported in 2019 dollars. The range of
When more recent years are used as the
median earnings by degree field is
basis for the EP threshold, this could
substantial, ranging from around
$28,000 to $71,000.
153
152 See,
for example, 20 U.S.C. 1098bb(a)(2)(E).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
See www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/
library/working-papers/2016/acs/2016_Ohara_
01.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
raise the bar such that more programs
fail.
Discussion: The Department believes
that this comment highlights the value
of using a dynamic measure from
concurrent survey data, rather than a
static benchmark. In cases where the
economy improves for those without a
post-secondary credential, the EP
threshold could increase. If so, it
appropriately sets a higher bar for
college programs’ performance.
Changes: None.
State and National Benchmarks
Comments: One commenter argued
that standards for aid programs are set
nationally—for example, a single
maximum Pell grant amount, and
standard national limits for
undergraduate debt by level and
dependency status. The commenter
maintained that instituting different
State-level thresholds for the EP by
program location runs counter to this
national framework.
Discussion: The earnings threshold is
meant to proxy for the earnings levels
that a typical student might obtain if
they did not earn a postsecondary
credential. As shown in the NPRM,
these earnings vary across States for a
variety of reasons related to local
economic conditions, of the policies of
States, Tribes, and Territories, and other
factors. For example, States establish
requirements for programs, licensing, or
both. States, Tribes, and Territories also
establish requirements for earning a
high school diploma and its
equivalency. Additionally, because
State policy can have a substantial
impact on both aid and on local labor
market conditions, the Department
believes that a State-level EP threshold
is appropriate since the EP threshold is
meant to measure the earnings that a
student might have obtained had they
not attended college.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
thought that the proposed regulations
needed to make more distinctions in
outcomes based on the sizes of the
institutions as well as the type of
educational program and said the
Department should consider the
differences in the variety of jobs that
students pursue from programs that are
not specialized to lead into careers.
Some concern was also expressed that
there would be national earnings for
programs compared to regional earnings
information for high school graduates,
as well as noting that many small
programs would not be captured under
the proposed regulations.
Discussion: The financial value
transparency framework is intended to
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
provide information to students and
families about average educational debt
and average program earnings using the
CIP codes for those programs. This
provides students and families with
useful information not only about
different programs offered at one
institution, but also to compare
comparable programs offered at
different institutions. Institutions are in
the best position to determine what
additional information will provide
context about the impact the size of an
institution may have on the educational
experience and the job opportunities
that may be available to program
graduates. We note that the average
earnings provided for a program are
based upon that program’s graduates
and therefore have some direct
connection to the institution whose
programs are at issue. This provides a
reasonable comparison with the
earnings for high school graduates in
that region.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested
that, in place of the State-level median
earnings on ACS, the Department
should use BLS data on the lower end
of earnings for a given career path. For
example, the EP threshold could be the
10th percentile of earnings for those
who are employed in a given
occupation.
Discussion: BLS’s Occupational
Employment and Wage Statistics
contain national-level data on annual
wages at the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and
90th percentile, by industry code (North
American Industry Classification
System) and by occupational code
(Standard Occupational Classification
System). Across roughly 450 broad
occupational codes, about 11 percent of
occupational codes had 10th percentile
earnings of less than $25,000 (roughly
the EP threshold). Using the BLS
threshold would mean that most
programs would likely be held to a
higher threshold than they would under
the ACS measure, and that the threshold
would have no adjustment for
geography. The Department intends the
earnings threshold to represent a
benchmark level of earnings that
students would obtain had they not
pursued a post-secondary credential. As
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
the comparison to BLS benchmarks
suggest, this is a more conservative
minimum bar on which to hold
programs accountable. In our view it is
the more appropriate threshold to
determine whether career training
programs are preparing their students
for gainful employment.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters
suggested that students who earned
higher-level credentials (such as a
bachelor’s degree or a graduate degree)
were more likely to seek employment
out of State.
Discussion: The earnings threshold is
meant as a proxy for what students
would earn had they not attended
college, not to put graduates’ earnings in
context based on where they work after
college. Accordingly, the high school
earnings levels in the states where
students come from is more relevant.
We have clarified in the final rule that
if fewer than 50 percent of the students
in the program come from the State
where the institution is located, the
program would be subject to a national
EP benchmark, rather than a State-level
benchmark.
Changes: We revised the definition of
‘‘earnings threshold’’ at § 668.2 to clarify
that national earnings are used if fewer
than 50 percent of the students in the
program come from the State where the
institution is located, rather than where
the students are located while enrolled.
Growth Measure for Earnings Premium
Comments: Many commenters
suggested using earnings growth or an
economic mobility measure, rather than
an EP threshold. Commenters suggested
that pre-enrollment earnings could be
compared to post-enrollment earnings.
If the post-enrollment earnings were
higher (some comments suggested by 20
percent), then the program would pass
the earnings test.
A couple of commenters also
suggested that the programs could
choose between being measured on the
EP threshold or on the growth measure.
Other commenters noted that students
in cosmetology programs are often
coming from very low wage jobs before
entering school, so such a pre-post
comparison would reflect favorably on
these programs.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70059
Discussion: The Department agrees
that pre- and post-earnings comparisons
are a theoretically attractive way to
assess how well programs boost
students’ earnings potential. In practice,
however, such a metric is infeasible to
operationalize for the majority of
programs.
For many programs, a large number of
students have low pre-period earnings
because, for example, they either do not
work or work a limited number of
hours, often because many are still
enrolled in high school, prior to
enrollment. All else equal, programs
that enroll larger numbers of students
without substantial prior attachment to
the labor force (e.g., younger students)
will have calculated earnings gains that
are larger than programs with a smaller
share of students without significant
prior work histories. Using
administrative Department data on
undergraduate certificate programs
eligible for title IV, HEA programs, we
show in Figure 1.3 that (a) the estimated
earnings gains using simple pre- postearnings comparisons are unrealistically
large; and (b) the proportion of younger
students enrolled in the program
predicts earnings gains. The estimated
earnings gains using data where many
students do not have pre-enrollment
data tend to be illogically large, with the
typical program having earnings gains
estimates over 10 times what is
commonly found in the research
literature.154 While some of this
relationship could be because of
differences across programs, the figure
demonstrates that because younger
students having no or less robust
earnings records, they will mechanically
have lower pre-period earnings and
higher calculated earnings gains. The
earnings gain metrics, therefore, yield
heavily biased estimates that are
meaningless in assessing program
quality, and the bias greatly
disadvantages programs serving older
students.
154 For a summary of results from selected studies
related to returns to certificates, see Table 1 from
Darolia, Guo, & Kim (2023). The Labor Market
Returns to Very Short Postsecondary Certificates.
IZA Discussion Paper 16081 (https://docs.iza.org/
dp16081.pdf).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70060
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Figure 1.3: Pre-post Earnings Gains Measure and Student Age
0
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
One way to address this would be to
measure earnings gains only for workers
who appear to have high labor force
attachment in the pre-period, as evident
by exceeding some minimum earnings
threshold. In practice, however, this
would result in dramatically smaller
numbers of completers that could be
used to measure earnings gains, and
dramatic reductions in the share of
programs and enrollment covered by an
earnings gain metric. Based on analysis
of administrative data, we approximate
that at least half of programs that had
sufficient student volume to calculate
median student earnings would no
longer have sufficient data if students
without labor force attachment were
excluded. These limitations make an
earnings-gain measure infeasible, at
least give current enrollment patterns.
Changes: None.
Age Range for Measuring Earnings
Comments: Several commenters
raised reservations about the timing of
earnings measurement for the high
school graduates to which each
program’s completers would be
compared. These commenters worried
that the 25 to 34-year-old demographic
used to calculate median earnings for
high school graduates was
inappropriately old for comparison to
recent program completers and would
put their programs at a disadvantage
because their program completers were
younger and earning less.
Discussion: The preamble in the
NPRM discussed the motivation for
choosing the 25 to 34-year-old age
range. Across all credential levels, the
average age three years after graduation
is 30 years old, and the range from 25th
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
to 75th percentile of program age (the
interquartile range) is 27 to 34 years old.
In other words, the typical graduate
from most credential programs is within
the comparison EP age range three years
after graduation. Because of this, the
Department declines to consider
additional adjustments to the age cohort
selected for the EP.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
suggested using years of work
experience, rather than age, as the
measure for selecting a comparable
sample of high school graduates for the
EP.
Discussion: This approach is generally
infeasible since detailed information on
workers’ years of experience is not
available in the ACS, which is the
source for the EP threshold. Moreover,
it is unclear whether and how a
comparable years of experience variable
could be generated for graduates from a
given program, especially for those who
started a program of study mid-career.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted
that some of their students enroll
through an early college option. As a
result, these students tend to be even
younger than a typical cohort with a
given credential.
Discussion: Students enrolled through
a dual enrollment or early college
program are typically not eligible for
title IV, HEA assistance, and would not
be included in an earnings or debt
measure unless they obtained Federal
financial aid after their high school
graduation, or as part of a pilot program
(i.e., the Department’s Experimental
Sites program). The Department
reiterates that most programs have a
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
•
typical graduate whose age is within the
age range used in the EP threshold.
Changes: None.
Demographics and the Earnings
Threshold
Comments: Many commenters noted
that program completers who are
disabled, are incarcerated, or choose not
to seek employment are included in the
program’s earnings data but would not
be considered part of the labor force in
the ACS, and therefore are not part of
the EP threshold calculation.
Discussion: Individuals who are not
seeking employment, or who are unable
to find employment over a full year due
to disability or incarceration or for other
reasons, are not included in the
calculation of the earnings threshold
using ACS data. To the extent possible
with administrative data, the
Department also excludes those who are
unable to work due to disability, as
borrowers who have been identified as
having a total and permanent disability
are not included in the D/E or EP
measure earnings. Further, individuals
who are incarcerated and are enrolled in
an approved prison education program
are also excluded. The Department
believes that those who enroll in a GE
program are doing so with the intent of
seeking employment after completing
the program. This assumption is borne
out by the fact that a much higher share
of program graduates have positive
earnings reported to the IRS than is true
among individuals in a similar age range
and with a college education in the ACS
data.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
contended that the median wage for
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ER10OC23.002
A
~
Share Aged >=24 at time of FAFSA
2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
high school graduates should sample
everyone who meets the age and
credential criteria, including those who
no longer participate in the workforce.
Discussion: The median high school
earnings threshold includes those in the
labor force (who have a job or report
being available and looking for a job).
As noted in the NPRM, the Department
believes that most graduates of
postsecondary programs, particularly
those graduating from career training
programs, are likely to seek work or be
employed three years after graduation.
A comparison to those who cannot
work, or who have chosen not to work,
is not appropriate in this case.
Changes: None.
Reporting—§ 668.408
General Support
Comments: A few commenters
praised the Department for requiring
reporting for both GE and non-GE
programs, noting that doing so will
make more information about
educational programs available to the
public regardless of institution type.
Another commenter expressed support
for extending financial value
transparency reporting requirements to
graduate-level programs, which account
for a substantial portion of student
borrowing.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenters’ support.
Changes: None.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Benefits and Burdens
Comments: One commenter stated
that they expect the long-lasting and
regularly accruing benefits of the new
rule, including better earnings and
employment opportunities, lower
student loan burden, and reduced
taxpayer costs, will dwarf the reporting
costs to institutions. The commenter
also maintained that most of the
compliance costs will be one-time
investments to adapt to new reporting
requirements, while the benefits will be
persistent.
Discussion: We agree that the costs
associated with the institutional
reporting requirements in § 668.408 will
be outweighed by the benefits of the
financial value transparency framework,
as well as the benefits of the GE program
accountability framework.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters opined
that the proposed reporting
requirements would be costly, time
consuming, and burdensome for
institutions, especially HBCUs,
community colleges, rural institutions,
and small institutions which operate
with budgetary and staffing limitations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
One commenter urged the Department
to limit new reporting requirements to
the greatest extent possible. Another
commenter highlighted the need to
balance the interests of accountability
and practicality to achieve desired
outcomes while minimizing reporting
burden. Some commenters note that,
because the proposed transparency
framework applies to all programs, and
not just GE programs, it represents a
large increase in reporting burden for
institutions.
Discussion: We understand the
commenters’ concerns about limiting
reporting requirements and recognize
the need to appropriately balance the
interests of accountability and
practicality. The Department requires
the reporting under the regulations to
calculate the D/E rates and EP measure,
as provided in §§ 668.403 and 668.404,
and to calculate or determine many of
the disclosure items, as provided in
§ 668.43(d).
We have carefully reviewed all of the
required reporting elements and have
determined that the benefits of the
transparency and accountability
frameworks made possible through the
reported data sufficiently justify the
associated reporting costs and burden
for institutions. We further note that
institutions will benefit from the
reporting because the information will
allow them to make targeted changes to
improve their program offerings,
benchmark their tuition pricing against
similar programs at other institutions,
and better promote their positive
outcomes to potential students.
In terms of staffing limitations, we
have not estimated whether or how
many new personnel may be needed to
comply with the reporting requirements.
Allocating resources to meet the
reporting requirements is an individual
institution’s administrative decision.
Some institutions may need to hire new
staff, others will redirect existing staff,
and still others will not need to make
staffing changes because they have
highly automated reporting systems. We
expect these costs to be modest since, as
noted in the RIA, most institutions have
experience with the data reporting for
the rule for at least some of their
programs under the 2014 Prior Rule or
in responding to recent NCES surveys.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter opined
that it is unclear what mechanism and
process institutions would use to
provide the large amount of data
necessary to calculate D/E and EP
metrics for nearly all eligible programs
to the Department. Some commenters
said that this additional burden and cost
of complying would be complex and
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70061
require meticulous coordination,
particularly to create the reporting
process for the first year the regulations
would go into effect. Several
commenters cautioned that the
regulations the Department proposed to
improve institution accountability will
have the unintended consequences of
imposing significant reporting burdens
on many institutions that provide strong
outcomes for students who readily find
good jobs in high demand fields.
Discussion: While we acknowledge
that the overall number of programs will
increase from those reported under the
2014 Prior Rule, we anticipate the
process will largely remain similar. We
also expect to add additional fields as
appropriate to existing Departmental
systems including the Common
Origination and Disbursement (COD)
system and the National Student Loan
Data System (NSLDS).
The Department will provide
institutions with guidance and training
on the new reporting requirements,
provide a format for reporting, and
enable our systems to accept reporting
from institutions beginning several
months prior to the July 31, 2024,
deadline so that institutions have
sufficient time to submit their data for
the first reporting period. The
Department will also continue to look at
ways this information can be routinely
updated in the systems to reduce
separate reporting burdens on
institutions and will consider additional
ways to simplify our reporting systems,
as appropriate.
We are also exempting from these
regulations, including the reporting
requirements, institutions offering any
group of substantially similar programs,
defined as all programs in the same
four-digit CIP code at an institution with
less than 30 completers in total during
the four most recently completed award
years. While these metrics are
calculated at the six-digit CIP code
level, for the purposes of qualifying for
this exemption, we measure completers
among all such programs at the fourdigit CIP code level to avoid incentives
for institutions to create new, smaller
programs that are substantially similar
in order to avoid being covered by these
rules. Although this change will result
in the loss of some beneficial
information from these institutions
independent of the D/E rates and
earnings premium metrics, such as net
pricing at specific credential levels, we
believe this loss is acceptable when
balanced against the alleviated reporting
burden for many institutions.
Approximately 700 institutions will
benefit from this exemption, including
about 85 percent of participating foreign
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70062
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
institutions and a diverse group of other
institutions. This reduction of burden is
achieved without diminishing the
impact of the D/E rates or EP measure,
as institutions exempted from the
reporting requirement would not have
sufficient numbers of completers to
calculate those measures for any
program. Moreover, the overall impact
to students is minimal because
institutions affected by this exemption
constitute less than one percent of total
title IV, HEA student enrollment and
less than one percent of total title IV,
HEA disbursement volume.
Changes: We have modified the
exemptions under §§ 668.401(b) and
668.601(b) to exempt institutions that
do not have any group of programs that
share the same four-digit CIP code with
30 or more completers in total over the
most recent four award years from these
regulations, as described above.
Comments: A few commenters
claimed that new reporting
requirements would overly tax
institutional financial aid and
information technology staff who are
already tasked with implementing and
adapting to significant changes to
Federal Student Aid processes and
systems for the upcoming 2024–25
award year. One commenter noted that
the 2014 Prior Rule presented technical
difficulties in report coding for students
enrolled concurrently in multiple GE
programs and anticipated these
challenges to be more significant with
the potential for students to now
simultaneously enroll in GE and non-GE
programs. One commenter indicated
that the proposed rule did not clearly
explain how to handle reporting
requirements for a student enrolled
simultaneously in a GE program and an
eligible non-GE degree program,
recommending that the eligible non-GE
degree program should take precedence
for reporting because funds received by
the student would be primarily used for
that program.
A few commenters recommended that
the data reported under § 668.408 be
open, interoperable, and available for
integration into State longitudinal data
systems. One commenter noted that
additional investments in State data
systems will be necessary to ensure
accurate reporting on the proposed
metrics and requested that the
Department encourage States to invest
more resources into linked and
integrated longitudinal data systems to
reduce reporting burdens on
institutions.
Discussion: We acknowledge that the
reporting requirements in § 668.408
may, in some cases, increase the
demands on an institution’s information
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
technology staff and resources. We also
recognize that institutions must adjust
for technical and system changes under
the Free Application for Federal Student
Aid (FAFSA) Simplification Act and
Fostering Undergraduate Talent by
Unlocking Resources for Education
(FUTURE) Act, effective for the 2024–
2025 award year. The Department has
provided, and will continue to provide,
training and technical resources in
advance of the implementation of the
FAFSA Simplification Act and Future
Act provisions.
We will also provide training and
technical resources prior to the
implementation of the Financial Value
Transparency and Gainful Employment
frameworks set forth in this final rule,
which will address the handling of
situations involving students
simultaneously enrolled in multiple GE
programs. We appreciate the request for
a clearer explanation of how institutions
should handle reporting requirements
for a student enrolled simultaneously in
a GE program and an eligible non-GE
degree program. We will provide further
clarification in sub-regulatory guidance
and training in advance of the effective
date of the reporting requirements under
this final rule, and we will consider the
request that eligible non-GE degree
programs take precedence.
The Department agrees that data
published under these provisions
should be as transparent and
interoperable as possible, while
recognizing the necessary constraints to
protect student privacy. We will
continue to evaluate ways to make the
published data as valuable as possible to
researchers and State policymakers. We
also agree that wise investments in State
data systems may increase the value of
data reporting requirements, and we
encourage States to support linked and
integrated longitudinal data systems as
appropriate.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted
that the proposed reporting
requirements appear unnecessarily
burdensome for institutions that do not
participate in the Direct Loan program
and whose graduates are therefore
unburdened with student debt.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with the assertion that the reporting
requirements are unnecessarily
burdensome for institutions that do not
participate in the Direct Loan program.
A program should not be exempt from
the reporting requirements because it
has a low borrowing rate or a low
institutional cohort default rate. The
information that institutions must report
is necessary to calculate not only the D/
E rates, but also to calculate the EP
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
measure and to determine many of the
disclosure items as provided in
§ 668.43(d). Exempting some
institutions from the reporting
requirements, whether partially or fully,
would undermine the effectiveness of
both the accountability and
transparency frameworks of the
regulations because the Department
would be unable to assess the outcomes
of those programs. In addition, students
would not be able to access relevant
information about these programs and
compare outcomes across institutions.
We also note that D/E rates calculations
would likely be favorable for
institutions with low rates of borrowing.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted
that reporting requirements constitute
administrative work that does not serve
students in a direct manner. Several
commenters noted that the costs of the
new reporting requirements will
inevitably transfer to the student.
Discussion: We do not agree that the
efforts institutions will need to invest in
to comply with reporting requirements
do not directly serve students. The
financial value transparency metrics
calculated using the reported data will
provide valuable information directly to
current and prospective students, who
can use that information to better inform
critical enrollment and borrowing
decisions. Moreover, the GE
accountability framework will directly
protect students, prospective students,
families, and the public by ending title
IV, HEA participation for the poorest
performing programs.
While we acknowledge that
institutions may pass administrative
costs on to students through increased
tuition and fees, we note that the
transparency framework will increase
the availability of cost information
available to students and prospective
students in comparing programs and
institutions, and we expect that market
forces will mitigate this practice to some
extent through increased pricing
competitiveness among institutions.
Changes: None.
Specificity
Comments: One commenter argued
that proposed § 668.408(a)(4), which
would allow the Department to specify
additional reporting requirements in a
future Federal Register notice, is vague
and overly broad to such an extent as to
provide us with unlimited discretion in
imposing additional reporting
requirements. This commenter
contended that proposed § 668.408(a)(4)
did not provide sufficient notice
concerning the types of information that
institutions may be required to report or
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
disclose. The commenter requested that
the Department either provide further
information about the types of reporting
that may be required under
§ 668.408(a)(4) or remove this provision.
Another commenter expressed concern
that the public would lack a mechanism
to engage the Department prior to the
addition of any further reporting
requirements through a future Federal
Register notice.
Discussion: We believe that the
Department needs the discretion to
reasonably modify future reporting
requirements to adapt to unforeseen
changes in the postsecondary
ecosystem, including to eliminate
unnecessary or duplicative reporting
requirements. Examples of such
potential developments that might be
relevant to students could include more
reliable and consistent job placement
rates, new types of financial assistance
available to students in addition to the
title IV, HEA programs, or other such
information. Retaining the flexibility to
efficiently modify future reporting
requirements is necessary to support our
goal to provide the students, families,
and the public with relevant
information to make better informed
postsecondary choices.
We note that any future modifications
to reporting requirements in the Federal
Register would be published well in
advance of the effective date of such
modified requirements and would
provide a contact for questions about
the new requirements.
Changes: None.
Timeframe
Comments: One commenter expressed
support for the proposed reporting
timeline and urged the Department to
aggressively prioritize the development
of data systems and other related tools.
This commenter further noted that such
reporting requirements are not new
because institutions with GE programs
have previously implemented many
aspects of the proposed reporting
requirements, and we already require all
institutions to report many of the
proposed data points.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s support, and we affirm our
intent to prioritize the development of
the systems and tools necessary to
facilitate the reporting requirements. We
agree that the reporting requirements set
forth in this final rule are not without
precedent, and many of them should
already be familiar to institutions.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters noted
that the proposed reporting provisions
would require institutions to report
multiple years of initial data with only
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
a 30-day window from the effective date
of this final rule and urged the
Department to allow institutions
adequate time to prepare and report any
required information, particularly in
light of other high-priority work
competing for institutions’ limited
resources. One example provided was
implementing sweeping FAFSA
simplification changes for the 2024–
2025 award year.
A few commenters remarked that
efforts necessary to comply with the
initial reporting deadline for the 2014
Prior Rule were harmful to other
institutional operations that had to be
postponed. These commenters
suggested revising the initial reporting
deadline from July 31, 2024, to October
1, 2024, which would be consistent with
the reporting deadline for all subsequent
years. Several commenters more broadly
suggested that the initial reporting
deadline should be a minimum of 90 to
120 days after the later of the effective
date of the final rule or the date that the
Department makes available the full
reporting format and process. These
commenters recommended further
extensions if we modify or supplement
reporting guidance after releasing it.
Discussion: We believe that the July
31, 2024, deadline for initial reporting is
reasonable and appropriate. While this
reporting period ends one month from
the effective date of the final rule,
institutions will have over nine months
from the publication of the final rule to
plan and prepare for the required
reporting. With regard to alleged harm
to other institutional operations caused
by efforts to meet the initial reporting
deadline, we note that under the
existing administrative capability
provisions at § 668.16(b)(2), institutions
are required to maintain an adequate
number of qualified staff to administer
the title IV, HEA programs, and part of
an institution’s responsibility is to
comply with reporting requirements.
The Department will provide training in
advance to institutions on the new
reporting requirements, provide a
format for reporting, and enable the
Department’s relevant systems to accept
optional early reporting from
institutions beginning several months
prior to the July 31, 2024, deadline. We
are not persuaded by commenters’
arguments that the implementation of
changes for the 2024–25 award year
under the FAFSA Simplification Act
and FUTURE Act would necessitate
extending the initial reporting timeline
because most institutions will have
already made the necessary operational
and procedural adjustments much
sooner than July 2024. We note that the
new FAFSA system and associated
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70063
processes will become operational and
available to institutions in December
2023.
We respectfully decline the
commenters’ suggestions to extend the
initial reporting period through October
1, 2024, or for an initial reporting
deadline 90 to 120 days after the
effective date of this final rule. As
discussed above, we maintain that
institutions have sufficient advance
notice between the publication of this
final rule and the initial reporting
deadline of July 31, 2024, to comply,
especially given the anticipated option
for advanced reporting. If the
Department significantly modifies or
supplements the reporting requirements
after the effective date of this rule, we
will consider further extending the
deadline.
Changes: None.
Reporting Period
Comments: Many commenters noted
that the requirement to report certain
information for students who enrolled
in the previous seven award years (and,
in some cases, up to nine) would
consume significant institutional time
and resources. These commenters
explained that this would especially
burden under-resourced institutions.
One such commenter postulated that
requiring institutions to report data from
prior award years could lead to a
widespread exodus of institutional
financial aid staff. Some commenters
noted that reporting for more than three
to five past award years would exceed
existing record retention requirements
and, as a result, this historical data
requested by the Department would be
incomplete. Several commenters urged
the Department not to impose sanctions
for metrics calculated using data from
past years that exceed applicable record
retention requirements.
Discussion: We believe that the initial
reporting requirements are reasonable
for most institutions and programs,
including under-resourced institutions.
Nearly all proprietary institutions are
already familiar with the previous
reporting requirements under the 2014
Prior Rule, and significant portions of
public and private nonprofit institutions
were also required to report for one or
more GE certificate programs under
those previous requirements. We remain
skeptical that the initial reporting
requirements would lead to significant
departures of institutional financial aid
professionals, in part because at most
institutions, reporting responsibilities
falls primarily on specific financial aid
staff, and in many cases reporting is
handled through automated processing
systems or dedicated reporting staff
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70064
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
outside the financial aid office.
Furthermore, most of the records
institutions must report fall within the
record retention timeframe required
under § 668.24(e), even if the data are
maintained in multiple systems or
formats. In addition, institutions may
have a policy of retaining student
records for longer periods; or a State or
accrediting agencies or both may require
them to do so.
Nonetheless, we are sensitive to
institutions’ concerns about the initial
reporting burden. To address these
concerns, we have extended the
transitional reporting period option
initially proposed for non-GE programs
to GE programs as well, as further
discussed under ‘‘Transitional Period’’
below.
Changes: We have revised the
transitional reporting option at
§ 668.408(c)(1) to now apply both to GE
and non-GE programs.
Comments: A few commenters noted
that the Department would better
promote a cooperative and supportive
relationship with institutions by
including an opportunity for
institutions to explain any failure to
comply with reporting requirements.
Another commenter suggested the
Department further explain the
provision at proposed § 668.408(b)(2)
that would allow an institution to
provide an explanation acceptable to the
Secretary of why the institution failed to
comply with any of the reporting
requirements. A few commenters argued
that the Department should hold an
institution harmless for failing to report
data it is no longer required to retain.
These commenters suggested that, if a
material number of institutions fall into
this category, the Department should
not calculate D/E or EP metrics for the
impacted years.
Discussion: We concur with
commenters that a process is necessary
for institutions to explain to the
Department any failure to comply with
reporting requirements. This process
would be appropriate, for example, in
instances in which a disaster,
emergency, or attack results in the loss
or destruction of data the institution
must otherwise report. We expect to
provide additional information
regarding the manner and circumstances
in which institutions could employ this
provision in future sub-regulatory
guidance and training. In such instances
where institutions are unable to comply
with these reporting requirements
because the institution was not required
to retain the records, § 668.408(b)(2) will
allow an institution to explain its
inability to comply with part of the
reporting requirements. The Department
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
will review an institution’s explanation
and may provide relief from the
consequences of the rule if sufficiently
supported by the circumstances and
evidence provided. We believe this
approach provides the needed flexibility
to accommodate limited circumstances
in which institutions may be unable to
report, including exceptional
circumstances that are difficult or
impossible to foresee at this time,
without unduly delaying or
compromising the transparency and
accountability benefits of the rule.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted
that the Department and other regulators
encourage institutions to limit the
volume of data they store, further noting
that our data destruction guidance
encourages institutions to minimize the
amount of data they retain by destroying
them when no longer needed,
identifying this as a best practice for
protecting individuals’ privacy and for
limiting the potential impact of a data
breach.
Discussion: We do not believe the
proposed reporting requirements
inherently conflict with the record
retention requirements at § 668.24(e),
nor with the Department’s guidance
pertaining to the destruction of records.
The record retention provisions at
§ 668.24(e) were never intended to
shield institutions from complying with
the Department’s legitimate program
oversight activities. For example,
§ 668.24(e)(3) requires institutions to
retain applicable program records
relating to costs questioned in an audit
or program review, indefinitely and
beyond the prescribed three-year
retention period, until resolution of
such audit or program review. In
addition, many institutions retain
student records for longer periods than
required by § 668.24(e), either as a
matter of institutional policy or as a
result of State or accrediting agency
requirements. As noted in the
Department’s data destruction guidance
cited by the commenter, some data may
need to be preserved indefinitely, while
other student information will need to
be preserved for a prescribed period of
time to comply with legal or policy
requirements.155 The reporting
requirements established under this rule
constitute such a requirement that
necessitates the retention of relevant
records, potentially beyond the threeyear periods referenced in § 668.24(e).
Changes: None.
155 studentprivacy.ed.gov/sites/default/files/
resource_document/file/Best%20Practices%
20for%20Data%20Destruction%20%282019-326%29.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Comments: One commenter expressed
concern that the proposed reporting
period may inadvertently identify
medical programs as low financial
value, lessening their ability to recruit
students and exacerbating the Nation’s
physician workforce shortage, because a
program’s current metrics would be
calculated based on the outcomes of
students from nearly a decade ago, long
before the institution would know what
metrics the Department would
eventually consider to constitute good
financial value in 2024.
Discussion: Our Regulatory Impact
Analysis in the NPRM showed that
certain undergraduate health
professions programs, particularly
certificate programs in medical assisting
and medical administration, would fail
the GE accountability measures at
higher-than-average rates.156 We do not,
however, expect that programs leading
to a terminal medical degree will fail the
D/E rates or EP measure in significant
numbers. We further note that the
cohort period defined at § 668.2 for
doctoral medical and dental programs
that require students to complete a
residency provides additional time,
relative to other programs, before
graduate earnings will be measured.
This provides additional reassurance
that reported earnings will accurately
and positively reflect physicians’ and
dentists’ ability to exceed the high
school earnings threshold and capacity
to repay their educational debts. In
summary, we do not expect that the
regulations will deter aspiring
physicians and dentists from pursuing
their chosen field, and we do not
believe that they will substantially
negatively impact the Nation’s
physician workforce.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter posited
that a more practical and less
burdensome reporting process might
focus on forward-looking reporting
rather than data from past award years,
arguing that such an approach would
better accommodate institutions’ need
for time to adapt to new reporting
requirements, and that current and
future data would be more relevant for
evaluating program effectiveness.
Discussion: Although we appreciate
the commenter’s suggestion, as
discussed in the ‘‘Background’’ section
of the NPRM,157 we perceive that the
need for these financial value
transparency measures and the GE
accountability framework is too urgent
to justify further delay in calculating
and publishing the D/E rates and EP
156 See,
157 88
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
for example, 88 FR 32427.
FR 32300, 32306 (May 19, 2023).
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
measures. The Department believes that
the regulations provide institutions
sufficient time and flexibility to adapt to
any new reporting requirements, and
that historical data can provide helpful
insight into an established program’s
performance over time. Students,
families, and the public deserve to
benefit from improved transparency and
accountability as swiftly as possible.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters noted
that some of the required data would be
associated with years in which
institutions and students were impacted
by the COVID–19 national emergency
and that this pre-pandemic environment
may no longer exist for many students.
One commenter suggested that the
Department postpone any sanctions
where data prior to 2022 is used in
determination of eligibility, due to the
broad impact of the COVID–19
pandemic on workers, graduates, and
the postsecondary education industry. A
commenter suggested extending the
initial reporting requirements by one to
two years to better account for the
economic effects of the pandemic.
Discussion: The Department
recognizes that data from some years
included in the initial reporting period
were impacted by the COVID–19
pandemic and national emergency.
However, postponing calculating the
outcome measures until such time as no
earnings data through 2022 is included
in D/E rate or EP calculations would
delay the benefits of the rule until at
least the 2026–2027 award year.
Extending the initial reporting
timeframe by one to two years would
produce a similar result. As discussed
above, we believe the need for the
transparency and accountability
measures is too urgent to postpone any
of their primary components to such an
extent, and to do so would abdicate our
responsibility to provide effective
program oversight.
Additionally, we are unconvinced by
arguments that data from prior to 2020
represent a pre-pandemic reality that no
longer exists. Recent data show that
overall labor force participation is back
to its pre-pandemic forecasted level, and
the prime-age (25–54) labor force
participation rate is now slightly above
pre-pandemic levels.158 We consider
and further discuss comments
pertaining to the COVID–19 pandemic
below under ‘‘Other Accommodations
and Special Circumstances.’’
Changes: None.
158 www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/
2023/04/17/the-labor-supply-rebound-from-thepandemic.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Transitional Period
Comments: A few commenters
expressed appreciation for the
transitional reporting offered at
proposed § 668.408(c)(1) for eligible
non-GE programs.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenters’ support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
requested that we offer GE programs the
same reporting options as non-GE
programs in the interests of fairness,
reduced burden, and consistent
comparison among all types of
programs. One commenter opined that
the proposed transitional reporting
period option would unfairly hold GE
program to a more difficult standard.
This commenter argued that the
reporting burden offered by the
Department as reasoning for the
transitional reporting period for non-GE
programs holds equally true for GE
programs.
A few commenters requested further
explanation of the Department’s
reasoning for the difference in initial
reporting requirements.
A few commenters recommended
extending the transitional reporting
period option to GE programs that do
not offer loans. These commenters noted
that many GE programs—particularly at
community colleges—do not offer loans,
yet we would require them to report
seven years of institutional data to
facilitate D/E rates that we would
ultimately not calculate for those
programs.
Discussion: Our reasoning for offering
the transitional reporting and rates
option only to non-GE programs was to
lighten the initial reporting burden for
institutions offering only non-GE
programs which they were not required
to report under the 2014 Prior Rule.
Given that the financial value
transparency metrics do not impact
program eligibility for non-GE programs,
we believed that alleviating some of the
initial reporting burden would justify a
temporary sacrifice in the quality and
comparability of the D/E data reported
during the transition period.
With regard to concerns about
reporting requirements for institutions
and programs that do not offer loans, we
note that the Department would
nonetheless calculate the EP measure
for such institutions and programs.
While we maintain that the initial
reporting requirements are reasonable,
in the interests of more equitable
treatment of programs and institutions,
and to facilitate smoother and less
burdensome implementation for
institutions, we extend the transitional
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70065
reporting option to all programs in this
final rule. We believe that this change
will alleviate many commenters’
concerns about fairness, cost, and
burden, and that these considerations
justify the brief period for which the
D/E rate data will be impacted.
Changes: We have revised the
transitional reporting option at
§ 668.408(c)(1) to now apply both to GE
and non-GE programs.
Comments: One commenter suggested
that the Department use only the
transitional reporting and calculation
methodology, abandoning any
requirements to report for periods older
than the preceding two award years.
Discussion: The Department
considered permanently adopting the
transition period’s structure of
calculating D/E rates for all programs.
While this approach would result in a
mismatch between borrowing and
earnings cohorts, it would use the most
recently available debt and earnings
data to determine program D/E
outcomes. Such an approach would also
increase institutions’ ability to affect
their students’ borrowing levels in
response to adverse D/E outcomes
before losing eligibility. While this
approach could make the D/E rates more
forward-looking, we decided against it
as a permanent measure because the
earnings and debt measures would
reflect the outcomes of different
students. We believe the D/E rates will
be more meaningful and informative to
most students if completers’ earnings
outcomes are matched with the debt
incurred by the same group of
borrowers.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter posited
that because the 2014 Prior Rule used a
different methodology to calculate D/E
rates, such as not considering
scholarships and grants in capping loan
debt, it would be inappropriate to use
those earlier data to calculate D/E rates
under this final rule.
Discussion: In writing the NPRM, we
did not envision using previously
reported data to calculate D/E rates.
Instead, we will require reporting of
new information for past completer
cohorts to construct the rates as set forth
in the final rule. Since we have
extended the transitional reporting
option to both GE and non-GE programs,
institutions will have the choice to
report these additional data elements,
such as private loans, institutional
scholarships, and grants, starting with
the most recent completer cohorts, or for
the historical cohorts matching those for
whom we measure median earnings.
Changes: None.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70066
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Redundancy
Comments: Several commenters urged
the Department to avoid imposing
duplicative reporting requirements,
asserting that institutions already report
some data elements at proposed
§ 668.408 (such as CIP code, credential
level, program name, program length,
enrollment status, attendance and
graduation dates, disbursement
amounts, and income once IRS Direct
Data Exchange is in place) to other
Department-maintained websites such
as NSLDS, COD, and Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS). These commenters further
suggested that the Department should
share data it controls between systems
and processes to relieve administrative
burden for institutions. A few
commenters further noted that
duplicative reporting requirements
increase institutional burden yet
provide little added value to students
because much of the information is
already available.
Several commenters noted that
institutions are already required to
publish graduation and placement rates
through accrediting agency
requirements. A few commenters
opined that it is difficult for career
training programs to comply with
overlapping transparency requirements.
These commenters suggested that the
Department thoroughly review the
annual requirements for reporting,
accountability, and transparency.
Discussion: Although there is some
overlap with the Department’s current
enrollment reporting and disbursement
reporting requirements, those data do
not include several key elements
required for the calculation of D/E rates,
such as debt students owe directly to
the institution, other private education
loan debt, tuition and fees, and
allowance for books and supplies. As
discussed under ‘‘Burden’’ above, we
believe that the transparency and
accountability benefits outweigh any
burden of reporting. We further note
that various factors, such as the
sophistication of an institution’s
systems, the size of the institution and
the number of programs that it has,
whether or not the institution’s
operations are centralized, and whether
the institution can update existing
systems to meet the reporting
requirements will affect the level of
burden for any particular institution.
With regard to accrediting agency
requirements concerning the publishing
of graduation and placement rates, we
remind commenters that we do not
include placement rates among the
reporting requirements in this rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Accrediting agency requirements and
methodologies vary, and inconsistencies
in how institutions currently calculate
job placement rates limit their
usefulness in comparing institutions
and programs.
As previously noted, the Department
has carefully considered the reporting
requirements that support the
transparency and accountability
frameworks of this rule. We believe
them to provide the most appropriate
and helpful information for students,
families, and the public at this time
balanced with the needs of institutions.
The Department will nonetheless review
the data institutions currently report
and will work to mitigate duplicative
reporting to the greatest extent possible.
Changes: None.
Data Elements
Comments: One commenter suggested
that, in addition to the data elements
identified in the NPRM, the Department
require institutions to report the
distance education status of their
students (i.e., entirely online, entirely
on-campus, or hybrid). This commenter
reasoned that doing so would enable
useful insights about the outcomes of
online and hybrid programs and would
allow a more targeted comparison of
earnings between completers and high
school graduates for the EP measure.
Discussion: We appreciate this
suggestion, and we concur that more
granular data on students’ distance
education status could yield useful and
better targeted program information. We
do not currently gather this information
on the individual student level. We
considered strategies for obtaining such
information, such as creating and
assigning virtual OPEID numbers to
represent an institution’s online-only
programs. Upon further consideration,
we believe that such changes could have
wider ranging impacts and would be
best addressed by including them in a
broader discussion of distance
education issues in our upcoming
negotiated rulemaking.159
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested
removing reporting requirements for
non-Federal sources of aid, particularly
private loans and institutional grants,
noting that institutions are only aware
of private loans if lenders or students
disclose them. The commenter further
noted that gathering and reporting
private loan information is burdensome
for institutions.
One commenter proposed removing
the requirement to report institutional
debt. This commenter argued that the
159 See
PO 00000
88 FR 17777 (Mar. 24, 2023).
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
institutions collect these debts directly
from the student, they are not tied to
Federal investment, and they typically
result from student withdrawals. As an
alternative, this commenter suggested
using return of title IV, HEA funds
(R2T4) record submission to estimate
the average institutional debt.
Another commenter noted that
reporting debt due at time of exit from
the program presents unique
programming challenges that would
require manually fixing a significant
portion of records, suggesting that
institutions be exempted from reporting
this data element if the median value is
less than $200.
Discussion: The reporting of nonFederal sources of aid—including
institutional grants and scholarships;
State, Tribal, or private funding; and the
private education loans of which the
institution is aware (including those
made by an institution) is necessary to
accurately determine educational debt
for purposes of calculating and
providing D/E rates. Omitting private
education loan debt, including
institutional loan debt, would harmfully
diminish the usefulness of the
information by providing an inaccurate
estimate of the true costs typically
incurred by students to enroll in a
program. Regardless of any associated
burden, reporting non-Federal grants
and scholarships ultimately benefits
institutions because, as provided under
§ 668.403, in determining a program’s
median loan amount each student’s loan
debt would be capped at the lesser of
the loan debt or the program costs, less
any institutional grants and
scholarships. Some institutions with
higher overall tuition costs offer
significant institutional financial
assistance or discounts that reduce the
net cost for students to enroll in their
programs. Requiring institutions to
report institutional grants and
scholarships allows the Department to
take such financial assistance into
consideration when measuring debt
outcomes, will encourage institutions to
provide financial assistance to students,
and will ultimately result in a fairer
metric and more consistent comparisons
of the actual debt burdens associated
with different programs.
While we appreciate the suggestion to
use R2T4 reporting as a proxy to
estimate institutional debt, doing so
would overlook other sources of
institutional debt such as gap loans,
emergency loans, and payment plans.
We believe it is necessary to capture all
such sources of educational debt to
calculate and provide D/E rates that are
sufficiently accurate.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
We also appreciate the commenter’s
suggestion that institutions be exempted
from reporting institutional debt if the
median value is less than $200. While
we recognize the technical concerns, we
believe that this burden is outweighed
by the benefit of accurate debt
information. While $200 may appear to
be a reasonable de minimus amount of
debt for institutions not to report, it is
unclear what data would support this
threshold or some other particular
amount. Additionally, we do not believe
a threshold to be appropriate, because to
many current and prospective students
even a modest amount could make the
difference in covering critical indirect
costs such as housing, food, or
transportation, or going forward with
those needs unfulfilled.
Changes: None.
Comments: Regarding the requirement
to report licensure information
(including whether the program meets
licensure requirements for all States in
the institution’s area and the number of
graduates attempting and completing
licensure exams), one commenter noted
that licensure requirements and
oversight bodies vary by State and
suggested that the Department
investigate other, more accurate sources
of licensing, certification, and workforce
data, such as BLS Occupation and Wage
Statistics or Employment Projections
data.
One commenter opined that reporting
State-specific licensure preparation
requirements exceeds the limits of what
institutions can reasonably accomplish.
One commenter noted that the Florida
Education & Training Place Information
Program does not disaggregate wage and
employment data for private nonprofit
institutions, further noting that student
and employer surveys are unreliable
and suffer from poor response rates.
One commenter posited that reporting
program costs including books,
supplies, and equipment would be
burdensome for community colleges
because those elements can frequently
change. This commenter instead
suggested that we require institutions to
report a good-faith estimate.
Discussion: We are aware that
licensure oversight bodies, processes,
and requirements vary from State to
State, and we acknowledge that
institutions must commit sufficient time
and resources to adequately navigate
those requirements. Notwithstanding
the complexities of the State licensing
landscape, we remind commenters that
accurate information about whether a
program meets State licensure
requirements is of paramount
importance to students. Reporting
whether a program meets relevant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
licensure requirements for the States in
the institution’s metropolitan statistical
area or whether it prepares students to
sit for a licensure examination in a
particular occupation allows the
Department to provide current and
prospective students with invaluable
information about the career outcomes
for graduates of the program and
supports informed enrollment
decisions. In recent years, some
institutions have misrepresented the
career and employment outcomes of
programs, including the eligibility of
program graduates to sit for licensure
examinations, resulting in borrower
defense claims. Reporting information
about a program’s licensure outcomes—
such as share of recent program
graduates that sit for and pass licensure
exams will help to reduce the number
of future borrower defense claims that
are approved.
With regard to the request to consider
BLS data, we do not believe that BLS
data reflect program-level student
outcomes. The average or percentile
earnings gathered and reported by BLS
for an occupation include all earnings
gathered by BLS in its survey, but do
not show the specific earnings of the
individuals who completed a particular
program at an institution and, therefore,
would not provide useful information
about whether the program prepared
students for gainful employment in that
occupation.
With regard to concern about the
disaggregated Florida earnings data, we
note that institutions do not report wage
and employment data under this rule. A
Federal agency with earnings data
provides aggregate earnings data
directly to the Department.
We believe that institutions are
capable of collecting and reporting State
licensure information, and the
importance of State licensure
information to students justifies any
burden to institutions in collecting and
reporting such data. We do not believe
that allowing institutions to report a
good-faith estimate would result in
accurate and comparable information, in
part because whether an estimate was
provided in good faith would be
subjective and difficult if not impossible
to define.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested
that the Department require institutions
to report additional data elements,
including (1) whether a program
graduates commonly are subject to a
postgraduate training period, similar to
a medical or dental program internship
or residency, that could impact their
early career postgraduate earnings; (2)
the amount of title IV, HEA funds
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70067
obtained by the student for housing; and
(3) whether graduates obtain
employment that is unpaid or
subsidized through a government
program with housing, meal, or other
non-income benefits.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s suggestions. With regard to
postgraduate training requirements that
could impact immediate postgraduate
earnings, we include this information
among requirements that institutions
must report to the Department, and
include it on the list of elements the
Secretary may include on the program
information website described in
§ 668.43. Our analysis, however,
revealed that those particular
disciplines demonstrate significantly
more meaningful gains with an
extended earnings measurement period
than any other program categories. As
further explained in our earlier
discussion under ‘‘Measurement of
Earnings,’’ we determined that reporting
postgraduate internship or residency
requirements is properly targeted to
medical and dental programs, as
initially proposed.
We believe it is more appropriate for
institutions to report the annual
allowance for housing, rather than the
amount of title IV, HEA funds a student
obtained specifically for housing. Not
all institutions offer institutional
housing, nor do all students partake of
institutional housings at institutions
that offer it. It would be both
burdensome and unreliable to require
institutions to divine which specific
educationally related indirect costs each
student covers using title IV, HEA credit
balances.
While we recognize that some
students obtain employment that is
unpaid or subsidized through a
government program with housing,
meal, or other non-income benefits, we
believe this would apply to only a small
portion of postsecondary graduates.
While unpaid or subsidized programs
may provide meaningful personal
fulfilment and valuable societal
benefits, financial concerns weigh more
heavily in most students’ decision to go
to college, with the top three reasons
identified being ‘‘to improve my
employment opportunities,’’ ‘‘to make
more money,’’ and ‘‘to get a good
job.’’ 160 We believe it would be
unnecessarily burdensome to require
institutions to report this supplementary
information, and that such burden
160 Rachel Fishman (2015). 2015 College
Decisions Survey: Part I Deciding To Go To College.
New America (static.newamerica.org/attachments/
3248-deciding-to-go-to-college/CollegeDecisions_
PartI.148dcab30a0e414ea2a52f0d8fb04e7b.pdf).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70068
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
would outweigh the benefits to
students.
Changes: None.
Alternative Approaches
Comments: One commenter urged the
Department to consider alternative
approaches to increase transparency
without increasing costs to institutions.
Discussion: The Department is always
interested in exploring new approaches
to deliver improved outcomes while
minimizing costs and burden.
Nonetheless, among the options
available at this time, we believe the
approach set forth in this rule will
provide the optimal achievable balance
between costs and benefits. Further
discussion is provided under
‘‘Discussion of Costs and Benefits’’
below.
Changes: None.
Other
Comments: One commenter opined
that the Department did not discuss the
collection of such a large amount of data
and information during negotiated
rulemaking sessions.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with the commenter’s assertion that the
reporting requirements were not
discussed during negotiated rulemaking.
Preliminary language in the GE issue
papers for weeks two 161 and three 162 of
negotiations provided potential
reporting requirements for consideration
and discussion by the committee.
Because the committee did not reach
consensus, the Department is neither
limited nor bound to the specific
regulatory language discussed in
negotiated rulemaking. Moreover, the
reporting requirements were published
in the NPRM, and the Department
provided the public—including the
negotiators—a reasonable opportunity to
provide feedback to the Department
through the public comment period.
Changes: None.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Program Information Website—§ 668.43
General Support
Comments: Several commenters
voiced general support for the proposed
program information website and
requirements, noting that programmatic
information should be more publicly
available to support students in making
informed decisions.
The commenters further noted that
this information may help to prevent
harm to vulnerable populations.
Additionally, these commenters
161 www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/
hearulemaking/2021/3ge.pdf.
162 www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/
hearulemaking/2021/isspap3gainempl.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
suggested that this information can
encourage schools to operate more
efficiently and devote more resources to
providing career services and job
development resources to students. The
commenters further highlighted that the
program information website provides
other State, local, and Federal
stakeholders with information to
monitor and guide the improvement of
student outcomes.
One commenter noted that borrowers
with defaulted loans interviewed in
focus groups expressed a desire for more
information about loans and college
outcomes.
One commenter observed that
financial value transparency
information relating to cost of
attendance, majors of interest,
residence, and post-graduation earnings
can impact a student’s enrollment
decisions.
Discussion: We thank the commenters
for their support.
Changes: None.
General Opposition
Comments: One commenter opined
that institutions, not the government,
are best positioned to advise and inform
students and families.
Discussion: We remind the
commenter that nothing in this rule
prohibits an institution from providing
information to students and families.
We of course welcome and encourage
institutions to provide any reliable
supplemental and contextual
information to students that they may
wish to provide in addition to the
information we make available through
the program information website. We
believe, however, that both institutions
and the government have important
roles to play in this regard. We believe
that relying solely on institutional
efforts and resources would result in
inconsistent information that would
make comparing different institutions
and programs more challenging and
confusing for students, would increase
the risk of misrepresentation and abuse
leading to costly borrower defense
claims, and would unfairly
disadvantage smaller and underresourced institutions without large
marketing departments and budgets.
The financial value transparency
information we have chosen provides
more consistent information to students
and the public, more equitable
treatment of institutions and programs,
and better serves the needs of the public
and the mission of the Department.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
questioned how many students would
carefully view the proposed program
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
information website, opining that
excessive consumer information risks
obscuring the information and
overwhelming students.
Another commenter cited the
Department’s Direct Loan entrance
counseling as an example of consumer
information transparency where the
organization, length, and language
impede students’ interest and
understanding of the information,
leading students to only skim the
material to meet the requirement to
enable disbursement of pending loan
funds.
Discussion: The purpose of Direct
Loan entrance counseling and the
financial value transparency
information materially differ. Entrance
counseling is intended to make
borrowers aware of their rights,
responsibilities, and resources available
to them. The financial value
transparency information provides
information about the debt and earnings
outcomes of a program intended to aid
students in making informed enrollment
decisions. We believe that all of the
required information would be useful
and relevant to prospective and enrolled
students. We, however, concur with the
commenters that it is critical to provide
prospective and enrolled students with
the information that they would find
most helpful in evaluating a program
when determining whether to enroll or
to continue in the program. We note that
§ 668.43(d)(1) allows us to use consumer
testing to identify additional
information that will be most
meaningful for students, and
§ 668.408(a)(4) permits us to modify
future reporting requirements as
necessary to support improved
transparency.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter opined
that the requirements in proposed
§ 668.43(d)(1)(ii), (v), (vi), (vii), (x), and
(xi) to report a program’s completion
and withdrawal rates, D/E rates, EP
measure, loan repayment rates, median
loan debt, and median earnings would
violate institutions’ constitutional rights
under the First Amendment. The
commenter argued it is not clear that the
information required to be reported
would be purely factual and
uncontroversial because institutions
would not have an opportunity to
review, challenge, or appeal the
Department’s data or calculations before
the information is made public. This
commenter further posited that the
proposed requirements do not advance
a significant government interest in
preventing deceptive advertising and
providing consumer information about
program benefits and outcomes because
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
the information is made public before
institutions have an opportunity to
review, challenge, or appeal the
information. As a result, according to
the commenter, the Department could
inadvertently provide deceptive or
confusing information. This commenter
additionally noted that, in response to
similar objections under the 2014 Prior
Rule, the Department cited that the
disclosures in that rule were purely
factual and uncontroversial in part
because institutions were given an
opportunity to challenge the data and
calculations, which is absent in the
proposed regulations.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
that the requirements related to the
program information website violate
institutions’ First Amendment rights to
the freedom of speech. As an initial
matter, the rules do not require
institutions to disclose the information
in § 668.43(d)(1) to students because
that information will be posted on the
Department’s website, not the website of
an institution or program. In order to
clarify the nature of the reporting
requirements in § 668.43(d), we are
replacing references to the Department’s
‘‘disclosure’’ website with ‘‘program
information’’ website and making
related conforming changes to better
clarify the distinction between this
website hosted by the Department and
the institutional disclosure
requirements in § 668.43(a) through (c).
Section 668.43(d)(1) does not require
institutions to make disclosures to
students, as the 2014 Prior Rule did, and
we are changing the terminology to
avoid any confusion about the nature of
these requirements.163
Additionally, the rules aim to protect
the use of taxpayer funds and facilitate
program innovation, not only to
enhance informed student choice and
public information more generally. To
the extent some commenters suggest the
rules will require institutions or
programs to include such information
on their own websites, they are
incorrect. To clarify, the Department
will collect information and data from
institutions and other sources, conduct
certain calculations in accordance with
the rules, and post results on the
Department’s website. The material
posted on the Department’s website will
be the government’s speech, and clearly
so, not any institution or program’s
163 Section 668.43(d)(2) through (4) (regarding
links to the Department’s program information
website) is addressed below in this section, as well
as in a separate discussion that covers public
comments on that section that are not directly
related to the freedom of speech under the First
Amendment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
speech,164 and will impose no burden
on the content choices of institutions.
To the extent that commenters suggest
that private parties have free speech
rights to control the content of an
agency website under these
circumstances, or that institutions have
a free speech right to regulate
communications between the
Department and students receiving
Federal aid, the Department disagrees
with the conclusion. That view of the
First Amendment would implicate a
broad range of government
communications that rely in part on
information collections from private
parties.
Moreover, the information available
on the Department’s program
information website will consist of
accurate factual, uncontroversial
information regarding an institution’s
programs. Courts have upheld the
provision of factual information against
First Amendment challenge even when,
unlike the situation here, the
government has required disclosures to
be made by private parties.165 Indeed, a
district court rejected First Amendment
and other challenges to a disclosure
provision in the 2014 Prior Rule, which
required institutions to make
disclosures directly to prospective and
enrolled students.166 We point out that,
164 See Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate
Veterans, Inc., 576 U.S. 200, 207 (2015) (‘‘When
government speaks, it is not barred by the Free
Speech Clause from determining the content of
what it says.’’).
165 See, e.g., Recht v. Morrisey, 32 F.4th 398, 419
(4th Cir.) (involving required insertions into
attorney advertisements regarding certain drugs and
their approval by the Food and Drug
Administration), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 527 (2022);
Am. Hosp. Ass’n v. Azar, 983 F.3d 528, 540 (D.C.
Cir. 2020) (involving required disclosures of
hospital pricing information to reduce confusion);
CTIA—The Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, 928
F.3d 832, 849 (9th Cir. 2019) (involving required
retail information regarding cellular phone carriage
and Federal Communications Commission
standards); Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of
Transp., 687 F.3d 403, 414–15 (D.C. Cir. 2012)
(involving the required prominent display of total
prices on airline websites); Am. Meat Inst. v. U.S.
Dep’t of Agric., 76 F.3d 18, 26–27 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
(involving required country-of-origin labeling); New
York State Restaurant Ass’n v. New York City Bd.
of Health, 556 F.3d 114, 131 (2d Cir. 2009)
(regarding required disclosure of calorie
information in connection with the sale of
restaurant meals). This list is not intended to be an
exhaustive collection of relevant sources, but
instead an instructive list of court decisions that
upheld regulations even when government
subsidies were not at issue. For a readily
distinguishable case that found a constitutional
violation, see Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Associates
v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361, 2371 (2018) (regarding
crisis pregnancy centers). Note further that, below,
we address the freedom of speech and warnings
about GE programs.
166 See Ass’n of Priv. Sector Colleges &
Universities v. Duncan, 110 F. Supp. 3d 176, 198–
200 (D.D.C. 2015) (alternative holdings) (involving
required disclosures including total costs or
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70069
in this final rule, § 668.43(d)(2) through
(4) merely require schools to inform
students of and direct them to the
Department’s program information
website, which will contain purely
factual, uncontroversial information.
Such website links and access
information are not the kind of
‘‘compelled speech’’ that has raised
serious concerns in the past.167
As for the rules adopted here
regarding the Department’s program
information website and the
institutional reporting of information on
which it will be based, we believe the
rules will directly advance important
government interests in informed
student choice and protection of taxfinanced resources, as well as
innovation in educational programs, by
making comparable information on
program features and results readily
available.168 Moreover, the rules are
crafted to serve the Department’s goals
and do not impose burdens on the
speech rights of institutions. The final
rules will make available objective,
factual, uncontroversial, and
commonsense information about
programs and their track records. Those
outcomes include clearly defined
measures of affordable debt and
adequate earnings.169 As we discuss
elsewhere in this document, institutions
may correct errors in certain
calculations.
Furthermore, the rules will not
interfere with institutions’ ability to
convey their own messages about
program performance and much else.
Students and others will be free to
evaluate the content of the Department’s
website as they make educational
decisions. And we emphasize that the
rules apply only to institutions that
estimated costs of completing a program), aff’d, 640
F. App’x 5, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (noting that, on
appeal, the Association no longer challenged the
disclosure rules).
167 See Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. &
Institutional Rts., Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 61–62 (2006)
(distinguishing government-mandated pledges and
mottos from a requirement that law schools include
notices regarding recruitment on behalf of the U.S.
Military when the schools offer such assistance to
other recruiters).
168 See Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Couns.
of Supreme Ct. of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 651 (1985)
(testing advertiser disclosure requirements for a
reasonable relationship to a governmental interest
in preventing deception, and for whether the
requirements are unduly burdensome to speech);
Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States,
559 U.S. 229, 259–53 (2010) (following Zauderer);
Am. Hosp. Ass’n, 983 F.3d at 540–42 (same).
169 Contrast the dictum in Ass’n of Priv. Colleges
& Universities v. Duncan, 870 F. Supp. 2d 133, 154
n.7 (D.D.C. 2012), which expressed concern about
a ‘‘statement that every student in a program
‘should expect to have difficulty repaying his or her
student loans.’ ’’ The requirements related to the
program information website adopted here do not
require any such message.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70070
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
participate in title IV, HEA programs.
Only institutions seeking to gain or
maintain title IV, HEA eligibility will
have to report the information at issue.
Therefore, the program information
website directly advances compelling
government interests—preventing
deceptive advertising about
postsecondary programs, providing
consumers information about an
institution’s educational benefits and
the outcomes of its programs, protecting
taxpayer interests in the careful use of
title IV, HEA funds, and improving
program performance, which often
comes from better and more accessible
information about results. Furthermore,
as we noted in the preamble to the 2014
Prior Rule, the program information
website builds on significant Federal
interests in consumer information that
are evidenced in decades of statutory
disclosure requirements for institutions
that receive title IV, HEA program
funds.170 Contrary to the commenter’s
opinion, the information provided
under § 668.43(d) is purely factual and
will not be controversial, in part
because the underlying information is
either directly reported to the
Department by the institution or, in the
case of earnings data, is the highest
quality data available and provided
directly to the Department by a Federal
agency with earnings data. As for
concerns related to institutional data
challenges, we address them below
under ‘‘Challenges, Hearings, and
Appeals.’’
The Department is confident in the
quality of information to be presented
on the Department’s program
information website, and confident that
it will significantly improve what is
easily available today. The individual
items of information listed in § 668.43—
including completion and withdrawal
rates, D/E rates, EP measure, loan
repayment rates, median loan debt, and
median earnings—have been narrowly
tailored to provide students and
prospective students with the
information the Department considers
most critical in their educational
decision making and in protecting
taxpayer interests in the use of title IV,
HEA aid, and in promoting
improvement in education programs.
Moreover, the Department intends to
use consumer testing to further inform
its determination of any additional
items it will include on the program
information website. We expect that this
consumer testing will highlight the
information that students find
particularly critical in helping them
make informed choices, which will in
170 79
FR 64890, 64967 (Oct. 31, 2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
turn help the Department protect taxfinanced resources.
Changes: We have revised § 668.43 to
refer to the Department’s website as the
‘‘program information website’’ rather
than the ‘‘disclosure website.’’ We have
also made conforming revisions to
§ 668.605(c)(2) and (3) by changing the
reference from ‘‘disclosure website’’ to
‘‘program information website.’’
Mechanism for Providing Transparency
Comments: Several commenters
generally supported the proposed
requirements but suggested that the
Department provide the information via
a single centralized website such as the
College Scorecard rather than develop a
separate website for the proposed
metrics. These commenters noted that
the College Scorecard is an established
and well-known comparison tool and
that adding the financial value
transparency information to it would
give students and families a betterrounded assessment of program value.
One commenter argued that
developing a separate program
information website would be
duplicative, confusing to students, and
increase costs to taxpayers when the
College Scorecard is already available.
Discussion: We agree that the College
Scorecard is a well-established and
beneficial tool for providing information
about postsecondary outcomes. The
Department, however, also recognizes
that merely posting the information on
the College Scorecard website has had a
limited impact on student choice. For
example, a randomized controlled
trial 171 inviting high school students to
examine program-level data on costs
and earnings outcomes had little effect
on students’ college choices, possibly
due to the fact that few students
accessed the information outside of
school-led sessions. Similarly, one
study 172 found the College Scorecard
influenced the college search behavior
of some higher income students but had
little effect on lower income students.
Consumer information is most likely
to impact choice when tailored to the
applicant’s personal context. We seek to
improve the information available to
students with several refinements
relative to information available on the
171 Blagg, Kristin, Matthew M. Chingos, Claire
Graves, and Anna Nicotera. ‘‘Rethinking consumer
information in higher education.’’ (2017) Urban
Institute, Washington DC. www.urban.org/research/
publication/rethinking-consumer-informationhigher-education.
172 Hurwitz, Michael, and Jonathan Smith.
‘‘Student responsiveness to earnings data in the
College Scorecard.’’ Economic Inquiry 56, no. 2
(2018): 1220–1243. Also, Huntington-Klein 2017.
nickchk.com/Huntington-Klein_2017_The_
Search.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
College Scorecard, including debt
measures that are inclusive of private
education loans and other institutional
loans (including income sharing
agreements or tuition payment plans), as
well as measures of institutional, State,
and private grant aid. This information
will enable the calculation of both the
net price to students as well as total
amounts paid from all sources. We
believe these improvements will better
capture the program’s costs to students,
families, and taxpayers, and we
maintain that these benefits sufficiently
outweigh the costs of developing the
new program information website.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
encouraged the Department to consider
whether requiring institutions to
provide disclosures directly to students
could be more efficient than creating a
new website.
Another commenter requested that
the Department consider a disclosure
template similar to the GE disclosure
template featured in the 2014 Prior
Rule, noting that it would provide clear,
concise, and uniform information from
institutions to students.
Discussion: We believe that providing
financial value transparency
information through a centralized
website maintained by the Department
will make this information more
convenient because it allows students,
families, institutions, and the public to
more easily compare programs than
direct institutional disclosure would
allow. In addition, requiring institutions
to complete and post disclosure
templates, or to directly distribute the
information to students, would be more
burdensome and costly to institutions
than the Department’s hosting the
program information website. We of
course welcome and encourage
institutions to provide any reliable
supplemental and contextual
information to students that they may
wish to provide in addition to the
information we make available through
the program information website.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed
support for a comprehensive
postsecondary education data system
which would provide academic, debt,
and earnings information beyond the
institutional or programmatic level
down to the individual student level,
and which would follow individual
students across institutions, ultimately
providing more complete and accurate
post-graduation debt and earnings
information. This commenter expressed
support for the system proposed in this
rule as a workaround, given that the
Department is currently prohibited from
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
establishing a unit record system of this
nature, and noted that in the absence of
such a system the approach proposed in
this rule represents a generally positive
workaround.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s support. While HEA
section 134 173 prohibits the creation of
new student unit record databases, any
earnings data provided to the
Department by the Federal agency with
earnings data will be at the aggregate
level. In the absence of such a granular
system of records, we believe the
transparency and accountability
frameworks will provide program-level
information that will exceed the quality
and utility of currently existing
information and oversight mechanisms.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter urged the
Department to conduct user testing on
its program information website before
it launches.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s suggestion. The
Department recognizes the value of
consumer testing, and to this end we
deliberately affirm in § 668.43(d)(1) the
Secretary’s authority to conduct
consumer testing to inform the design of
the program information website, if we
determine that such input would likely
enhance the implementation of the
transparency framework.
Changes: None.
Scope
Comments: A few commenters
expressed support for applying financial
value transparency to both GE and nonGE programs to increase access to
meaningful information about program
performance. The commenters believed
this approach addresses concerns about
the growing presence at public and
nonprofit institution of certain
predatory and wasteful practices more
prevalent in the proprietary sector, such
as incentive-based compensation for
online program managers and aggressive
marketing of costly online graduate
programs. Another commenter
expressed support for requiring the
calculation of meaningful metrics and
providing this information to all
students in all eligible programs. One
commenter noted that this information
is especially important for graduate
programs.
Discussion: We thank the commenters
for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters opined
that any substantive language on the
Department’s program information
website describing whether a program
173 20
U.S.C. 1015c.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
has met the standards and its
presentation should be consistent for
both GE and non-GE programs.
However, these commenters
acknowledged that language regarding
potential loss of title IV, HEA program
eligibility would not be relevant to nonGE programs.
Discussion: The commenter correctly
noted that any language relating directly
or indirectly to the loss of title IV, HEA
program eligibility must be limited to
GE programs, as non-GE programs are
not included in the GE program
eligibility framework. In crafting any
other language, we will attempt to
deliver relevant content using language
that best serves the needs of students,
and we will consider the commenter’s
suggestion as we develop that content.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter argued
that the requirements proposed at
§ 668.43(d)(1)(vii) to provide loan
repayment rates for students or
graduates who entered repayment, at
§ 668.43(d)(1)(x) to provide median loan
debt of students who completed or
withdrew from the program, and at
§ 668.43(d)(1)(xi) to provide median
earnings of students who completed or
withdrew from the program are
inappropriate. This commenter noted
that information would capture students
who did not complete the program,
further claiming that loan repayment
rates, median loan debt, and median
earnings for students who did not
complete a program are unrelated to the
quality of the program.
Several additional commenters
opined that the information should not
include median loan debt and median
earnings for non-completers because it
would have no bearing on the expected
earnings of a student who completes the
program.
Discussion: While the D/E rates and
EP measure are specific to graduates of
a program, the Department disagrees
with the commenters’ assertion that
other information such as loan
repayment rates, median loan debt, and
median earnings for non-completers is
unrelated to the quality of a program.
Graduation is, unfortunately, not the
only possible outcome of even the most
effective and well-administered
postsecondary programs. We believe
that students and prospective students
have a legitimate interest in knowing
the median amount students borrow
when enrolling in a given program and
their likelihood of being able to repay
that debt—whether or not those
students ultimately graduate from the
program. We contend that such
information will assist students in
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70071
making better informed enrollment and
borrowing decisions.
We further note that the outcomes of
students who do not complete a
program nonetheless reflect, at least to
some extent, upon the quality of the
program. It can be reasonably inferred
that the capability of an institution to
recruit students likely to succeed, to
support and retain those students once
enrolled, and to provide outreach and
support (such as career services and
information about loan repayment) to
students who withdraw is indeed
related to the overall quality of the
program.
Changes: None.
Content
Comments: One commenter noted
that proposed § 668.43(d)(1) provides
that the program information website
may include certain items, but does not
actually require any of the listed items
to appear on the new program
information website. The commenter
further noted that courts have held that
such language would not require the
Department to include any of the listed
items. This commenter speculated that
a future Secretary could effectively
rescind the financial value transparency
requirements without rulemaking. The
commenter added that by providing
students a regulatory right to specific
information (beyond a right to a website,
without any particular content) the
Department would clarify that, should it
later opt to remove the information,
students would suffer an Article III
injury-in-fact sufficient to confer legal
standing.
Discussion: We share this
commenter’s concerns and appreciate
the suggestion. We concur that proposed
§ 668.43(d)(1) would have established
access to a Department website without
guaranteeing access to any specific
information. Upon further
consideration, we have concluded that
some of the listed items of information
constitute a minimum of financial value
transparency information that should be
available to students, and that to remove
any of those elements would harm
students in the sense of receiving less
than that minimum of important and
useful information. We have reviewed
the list of items in proposed
§ 668.43(d)(1) as well as data that we
can foresee being available to the
Department when these rules are
implemented, in order to identify
information that is feasible and
especially important to post. Based on
that review we have concluded that, to
adequately safeguard students’ access to
the financial value transparency
information otherwise provided under
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70072
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
this rule, proposed § 668.43(d)(1) should
be revised to require the Secretary to
include certain listed items of
information on the Department’s
program information website when
applicable, while retaining the
flexibility to add additional items. In
our judgment and based on available
evidence, the required list of items
represents core program features and
matters of special importance to
students, institutions, and others who
are interested in evaluating and
comparing postsecondary education
programs. These elements are all key
pieces of information that are likely
relevant to all students to understand
basic facts about how much the program
costs, how long it takes to complete, the
amounts students borrow, their typical
earnings after graduating, and the D/E
and EP measures for the program. The
elements we mention as optional may
have more or less relevance to some
students and to some programs than
others.
Changes: We have revised
§ 668.43(d)(1)(i) to require the Secretary
to include certain items of information
on the Department’s program
information website when applicable,
including the published length of the
program; the program total enrollment
during the most recently completed
award year; the total cost of tuition, fees,
books, supplies, and equipment that a
student would incur for completing
within the published length of the
program; the percentage of students who
received a Direct Loan, a private loan,
or both for enrollment in the program;
the programs median loan debt and
median earnings; whether the program
is programmatically accredited and the
name of the accrediting agency; the
program’s debt-to-earnings rates; and
the program’s earnings premium
measure. The Department reserves the
flexibility to add additional items, and
retains the proposed data items at
§ 668.43(d)(1)(ii) as examples of such
supplemental data items.
Comments: One commenter suggested
revising the list of information items in
§ 668.43(d)(1) to remove redundant
information. This commenter opined
that a regulatory requirement for linking
to the College Navigator is unnecessary
because the College Navigator is not
user-friendly for a typical student. The
commenter also noted that we could
choose to include a link if warranted,
since the new program information
website would be under the
Department’s control.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s suggestion, and we agree
that the Department could include a
link to the College Navigator website
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
without specifying it in the list of
elements at § 668.43(d)(1).
Changes: We have removed the link to
the College Navigator website from the
list of required information items at
§ 668.43(d)(1).
Comments: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
provide generalized program level ontime graduation rates, as well as
program level on-time graduation rates
for Pell-eligible students and for women
and for Black, Hispanic, and other
students of color.
Discussion: The Department thanks
the commenters for these suggestions.
We recognize that this information
could be useful to students and others,
and we may consider adding it to the
program information website in the
future, particularly if such a change is
supported by consumer testing.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
suggested that the program information
website should identify institutions that
serve a high proportion of low-income
students. These commenters argued that
a nonprofit institution enrolling 5
percent Pell-eligible students and
graduating 95 percent of students does
less to improve social mobility than a
proprietary institution enrolling 80
percent Pell-eligible students and
graduating 60 percent of students.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenters’ suggestion, and we might
consider adding to the program
information website in the future some
designation of institutional mission or
of programs that serve a high proportion
of students with low income. We note,
however, that the supporting argument
made by these commenters is
speculative and appears to understate
the emphasis different institutions
across all sectors and credential levels
in higher education give to diversity in
their students and the demographics
they serve.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter identified
loan repayment rates as important
information for students, particularly
those in GE programs.
Discussion: We agree that a program’s
loan repayment rate may be important
information for students and other
stakeholders, and this information is
included in the list of information items
under § 668.43(d)(1).
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
expressed concern that D/E rate
information and the high debt burden
and low earnings labels could confuse
or mislead students, particularly firstgeneration and disadvantaged students,
and could negatively impact
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
underfunded and under-resourced
institutions in regions experiencing
persistent poverty. A few commenters
opined that labeling programs as high
debt burden or low earnings would
discourage students from pursuing
majors, such as teaching, which suffer
from low wages and staffing shortages.
Discussion: We do not agree that the
high-debt-burden or low-earnings label
on the program information website will
be confusing or misleading to students.
These designations stem from a
program’s D/E rate or EP measure
outcomes, which in turn rely upon
factual data provided by institutions
themselves and by Federal agencies
with the best available data.
Additionally, the meaning of the
designations comports with a plain
reading of each respective phrase.
The Department disagrees with the
commenters’ assertion that labeling
programs as high debt burden or low
earnings would discourage students
from pursuing fields such as teaching.
While we expect that the high-debtburden and low-earnings labels will
discourage enrollment in particular
programs at particular institutions that
lead to poor outcomes, we do not expect
the financial value transparency
framework to discourage enrollment
more broadly in those fields of study.
With regard to the field of education
cited by commenters as an area of
concern, as further discussed under
‘‘Impact on Enrollment in Lower
Earning Fields’’ above, our analysis
reveals that education training programs
are less likely to fail the D/E rates or EP
measure than other programs. Although
a career in education may be less
lucrative than other professions within
the same credential level, evidence
suggests that programs that prepare
graduates for a career in teaching easily
pass the EP threshold for earnings, and
even States with lower salaries have
average starting salaries well above the
State’s EP threshold.
As discussed under ‘‘Geographic
Variation in Earnings’’ above, our
analysis suggests that being located in
persistent poverty counties is not
outcome determinative for students at
such institutions.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
recommended that information about
low-earning programs should also
include information about Public
Service Loan Forgiveness, as well as
other loan forgiveness programs
available through the Department of
Health and Human Services and the
Department of Veteran Affairs, so
students can make better informed
enrollment and career decisions. One
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
commenter added that information
about Public Service Loan Forgiveness
and other relevant assistance programs
would particularly benefit those
entering the education profession.
One commenter posited that the
Department should provide disclaimers
and supplemental information where
appropriate, such as a disclaimer if a
program is disproportionally affected by
unreported income. One additional
commenter recommended including a
disclaimer addressing programs with
small cohort sizes.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenters’ suggestions and concur
that much of this information would be
useful to students. We, however, also
note that other commenters expressed
concerns that the anticipated list of
information items could confuse or
overwhelm students. These conflicting
perspectives demonstrate that we must
seek an optimal balance of providing
information of the most benefit to
students without unduly distracting
from the most salient information. We
will carefully consider what
supplemental information to convey on
the program information website, taking
into account consumer testing. We note
that the list of required disclosure
information items at § 668.43(d)(1) does
not preclude the Department from
adding additional information in the
future. We further note that nothing
would prohibit institutions from
providing supplemental information
directly to their students. Lastly, the
final rule excludes programs with fewer
than 30 completers in substantially
similar programs over the previous four
award years from reporting
requirements of the rule, and therefore
their D/E rates and the EP measure will
not be available to publish.
Changes: We have revised
§ 668.408(a) to limit the reporting
requirements to institutions offering any
program with at least 30 total
completers during the four most
recently completed award years.
Comments: One commenter suggested
that students and taxpayers would
benefit from information about
completion and placement rates; the
existence of academic and related
supports; and transfer and persistence
rates.
Another commenter asserted that
information such as licensure passage
rates and residency placement rates are
necessary to guard against deceptive
recruitment tactics.
One commenter expressed support for
providing the typical employment
outcomes for a program.
Another commenter opined that the
Department should not only require job
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
placement rates to be provided, but also
regulate how such placement rates are
calculated, citing the collapse of
Corinthian as one example of why
providing consistently calculated
placement rates is essential to protect
students and the public. This
commenter contended that in the 2014
Prior Rule preamble, the Department
cited a 2011 technical review panel,
which concluded a uniform job
placement methodology could not be
developed without further study
because of data limitations. The
commenter noted that the NPRM
preceding this final rule did not
mention this study or discuss whether
it should be updated in light of any
advances in the available data systems
since 2011. The commenter further
questioned why the Department’s
policies requiring placement rates for
certain short-term programs under
§ 668.8(g) could not be applied for
purposes of financial value
transparency.
Discussion: We agree that students
will benefit from knowing completion
rates and note that the program’s or
institution’s completion rates are
included among the list of information
items at § 668.43(d)(1).
Though we agree that licensure
passage and residency placement rates
would be useful to students, a
substantial portion of postsecondary
programs do not prepare students to
enter a field requiring licensure, and
many programs do not entail any
residency requirements. In the interest
of focusing on the most relevant,
comparable, and broadly applicable
information, we do not anticipate
including licensure passage and
residency placement rates on the
program information website at this
time. We note that the list of
information items at § 668.43(d)(1) is
not all-inclusive and the Department
could add these additional items in the
future, particularly if consumer testing
supports doing so.
We note that providing the ‘‘typical
employment outcomes’’ for a program
could mean a variety of things
depending upon the audience—for
example, the number of graduates who
find employment in a specific field, the
number of graduates who find
employment in any field, the number of
graduates who remain employed for a
specific length of time, the job
satisfaction of graduates, or any number
of other measurements related in some
way to employment. We therefore
believe the suggestion to provide typical
employment outcomes is too broad and
imprecise to implement.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70073
While we concur that job placement
rates would be beneficial to most
students, we note that accrediting
agency methodologies and requirements
for placement rates vary, and
inconsistencies in how institutions
currently calculate job placement rates
limit their usefulness in comparing
institutions and programs. The
placement rate requirement for shortterm programs under § 668.8(g) relies
upon auditor attestations of institutional
calculations, which again can vary
amongst institutions and auditors.
Developing a uniform Federal standard
for the calculation of placement rates
would be a complex and extensive
undertaking surpassing the scope of this
rulemaking. Nonetheless, should the
Department introduce such a standard
through future rulemaking, we could
add placement rates to the program
information website in the future.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
suggested that any median earnings data
provided under proposed
§ 668.43(d)(1)(xi) should be based on the
same time periods as those used for the
D/E rates and EP measure.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s suggestion. While in
general we anticipate providing
earnings data for the same time periods
as those used for calculating the D/E
rates and EP measure, we retain the
flexibility to provide median earnings
during a period determined by the
Secretary. For example, if an institution
uses the transitional reporting option
and transitional metrics are calculated
then the cohorts used for determining
median debt may differ from the cohorts
used for determining median earnings.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters urged
the Department to explain that the D/E
rates exclude funding from State and
local governments and only measure
debt burden relative to students, not to
taxpayers. One commenter noted that in
the 2019–20 award year, public degreegranting institutions received 76.6
billion in State appropriations and 14.5
billion in local appropriations.
Several commenters suggested that
the Department explore including an
estimate of State and local taxpayer
support for programs at public
institutions, arguing that doing so
would provide the public and
policymakers a more accurate
understanding of program cost, with one
commenter noting that the Department
has access to such information through
The Digest of Higher Education
Statistics.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with the commenters’ suggestion that
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70074
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
the regulations unfairly assess for-profit
institutions because programs operated
by for-profit institutions are in fact less
expensive than programs operated by
public institutions, once State and local
subsidies are taken into account. While
some for-profit institutions may need to
charge more than some public
institutions because they do not have
State and local appropriation dollars
and must pass the educational cost onto
the student, there is some indication
that even when controlling for
government subsidies, for-profit
institutions charge more than their
public counterparts. Research has found
that the primary costs to students at forprofit institutions, including foregone
earnings, tuition, and loan interest,
amounted to $51,600 per year on
average, as compared with $32,200 for
the same primary costs at community
colleges.174 This analysis estimated
taxpayer contributions, such as
government grants, of $7,600 per year
for for-profit institutions and $11,400
for community colleges.
The goals of this rule are to provide
increased transparency of program
outcomes and improved oversight of
Federal taxpayer funds. While public
institutions often benefit from State and
local appropriations, we maintain that
monitoring, providing, and otherwise
overseeing such sources of institutional
revenue falls outside the scope of this
rule. We further note that non-Federal
funding is not exclusive to public
institutions and could include any
number of sources such as endowments,
research grants, charitable donations,
private equity, fees from publicly
offered services, and so forth. Requiring
institutions to report all such sources of
funding would be unduly burdensome,
and the inclusion of all such sources of
funding on the Department’s website
would likely overwhelm many students
and distract from the core information
provided under these regulations.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter urged the
Department to clarify that the financial
value transparency information does not
measure academic quality (e.g., skill of
faculty, learning outcomes, quality of
facilities) or the lifetime earnings of
graduates.
Discussion: The Financial Value
Transparency and Gainful Employment
regulations are intended to establish an
accountability and transparency
framework to encourage eligible
postsecondary programs to produce
acceptable debt and earnings outcomes,
174 Cellini, S.R. (2012). For Profit Higher
Education: An Assessment of Costs and Benefits.
National Tax Journal, 65 (1):153–180.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
apprise current and prospective
students of those outcomes, and provide
better information about program price.
Other factors such as those mentioned
by the commenter may contribute to
these financial outcomes, but we do not
believe that students would mistake the
financial value transparency
information that the Department
proposes to present in a straightforward
manner on its website as for a direct
measurement of academic quality.
While the Department believes that
students should be informed about the
debt and earnings consequences of their
postsecondary choices, we may consider
adding language to the student program
information website noting that the debt
and earnings outcomes of programs are
a subset of the myriad factors students
may consider important in deciding
where to attend, particularly if such
language is supported by consumer
testing.
Changes: None.
Comments: For public and nonprofit
institutions, one commenter
recommended that the Department
additionally identify whether all
revenues of the institution are
committed to its educational and
charitable mission and whether the
majority of net tuition revenues in the
program are used for post-enrollment
instruction and student support. The
commenter further suggested that such
information should be affirmed in a
footnote on the institution’s audited
financial statement. The commenter
opined that this additional information
would promote the legitimate nonprofit
operation of institutions and shield
students from incorrect assumptions
that tuition dollars will be used to
support their success in cases where the
institution diverts funds to recruitment
or other purposes. This commenter also
suggested initially making this
additional information a voluntary
option, to accommodate institutions
which may need time to add those
measure to their internal accounting.
Discussion: While we share the
commenter’s concern about some
nonprofit institutions’ use of title IV,
HEA revenue for marketing,
recruitment, and other pre-enrollment
functions unrelated to academic
instruction and student support, we do
not believe that the financial value
transparency website is the best vehicle
to address that concern. The Department
also received comments related to this
issue on both the Financial
Responsibility and the Certification
Procedures regulations proposed in the
NPRM. Those issues will be discussed
in a separate forthcoming final rule.
Changes: None.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Comments: A few commenters
encouraged the Department to provide
disaggregated data whenever possible.
Discussion: We thank the commenters
for that suggestion. The metrics in the
rule currently focus on whether a
program is leading to high-debt-burdens
or enhanced earnings for the majority of
its completers. We will carefully
consider what additional information
might feasibly and usefully be added to
give students more tailored information
on program performance for students in
their own demographic group,
particularly in light of consumer testing
and privacy safeguards.
Changes: None.
Distribution and Linking Requirements
Comments: Several commenters
voiced general support for requiring
institutions to provide current and
prospective students with a link to the
Department’s program information
website and urged the Department to
preserve this component of the
proposed rule. One commenter argued
that students enrolling in postsecondary
programs are sufficiently mature to be
expected to review the information
available to them without requiring
institutions to actively distribute a link
to the material.
A few commenters expressed concern
about requiring institutions to post a
link to the Department’s program
information website on every
institutional web page containing
information about a program or
institution’s academics, cost, financial
aid, or admissions. One commenter
likened this requirement to the
requirement in the FAFSA
Simplification Act for institutions to
provide all elements of the cost of
attendance on any portion of the
institution’s website that describes
tuition and fees. This commenter noted
that while it appears to be a simple
requirement, it has already generated
numerous inquiries from institutions
about how to comply.
Several commenters noted that
although adding links to the
Department’s program information
website to institutions’ websites would
be a one-time cost and burden, large
institutions may have hundreds of web
pages requiring these links. These
commenters advised that such a
requirement could lead to compliance
issues if such an institution
inadvertently neglected to post the
required link on one or a few web pages.
One commenter further noted that
monitoring and enforcing such a broad
requirement could divert the
Department’s resources away from more
impactful issues and urged the
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Department to require institutions to
link to the program information website
only on their main website and on each
individual program’s landing pages.
Discussion: We thank those
commenters for their support. The
Department disagrees with the
commenter who suggested relying on
students to find the Department’s
website on their own because students
enrolling in postsecondary programs
vary widely in life experience and
financial literacy. For many students,
selecting an institution and program of
study is likely to be one of the most
financially significant decisions of their
life. While some students may possess
the financial savvy and inclination to
independently research and compare
institutions and programs, others may
not. We believe that requiring
institutions to inform students about the
Department’s program information
website under § 668.43(d)(3) and (4)
would benefit students by informing
them about the existence of information
that could aid in their decision making,
without unduly burdening institutions.
Furthermore, we do not believe the
requirement for institutions to post a
link to the Department’s program
information website on every
institutional web page containing
information about a program or
institution’s academic, cost, financial
aid, or admissions is confusing or
unclear. The requirements pertaining to
the posting of Cost of Attendance
information under the FAFSA
Simplification Act are unrelated to the
financial value transparency
information established under this rule,
and many of the inquiries concerning
those Cost of Attendance posting
requirements were about the specific
content of the information that must be
posted to meet FAFSA Simplification
Act requirements. We note that for the
required financial value transparency
information, institutions must post the
link to the Department’s program
information website on all relevant web
pages. We believe that institutions can
reasonably meet this requirement and,
as noted in the RIA, we believe that this
activity will require an estimated 50
hours per institution. We expect to
provide sub-regulatory guidance and
training to institutions in advance of the
effective date of these provisions to
minimize this burden. With regard to
the argument about the potential for
inadvertent noncompliance with the
posting requirements, we note that an
institution could inadvertently fail to
comply with any of our regulatory
provisions, and it remains the
institution’s responsibility to have the
necessary staff, systems and processes to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
be able to comply with all of our
regulatory requirements. We do not
expect that monitoring and enforcing
this requirement will require significant
resources and hinder the Department’s
other compliance monitoring and
enforcement efforts.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested
that publicizing information and
directing students to it during their
senior year in high school or earlier
could better impact enrollment
decisions.
Another commenter expressed
support for ensuring students receive
the information before enrolling or
making a financial commitment,
agreeing with the Department that
information on program value should be
provided at relevant points of entry.
This commenter further suggested that
the Department consider providing
access to this information through the
FAFSA portal to provide the
information to students earlier in the
decision-making process in a manner
that would not rely on institutional
compliance.
Discussion: The timing of when
applicants receive information about
institutions and programs is critical.
Data should be available at key points
during the college search process, and
applicants should have sufficient time
and resources to process new
information. Informational interventions
work best when they arrive at the right
moment and are offered with additional
guidance and support.175
We do not agree that providing
information to prospective students
during high school or earlier would be
more beneficial than providing it closer
to when the student makes the decision
to enroll. We, however, appreciate the
commenter’s suggestion to provide
information about the program
information website to students through
the FAFSA portal. While it would not
be possible to incorporate this change to
the 2024–25 FAFSA portal at this stage
of development, we will consider
adding it in a future award year.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters opined
that the requirements would present
obstacles to serving the basic needs of
enrolled students by delaying title IV,
HEA disbursements. These commenters
also opined that the information would
arrive too late in the admissions process
to affect college enrollment decisions.
Discussion: We do not agree that the
requirement to distribute information
175 Carrel, S. & Sacerdote, B. (2017). Why Do
College-Going Interventions Work? American
Economic Journal; Applied Economics. 1(3) 124–
151.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70075
about the program information website
would disrupt the basic needs of
students. We note that the distribution
requirements at § 668.43(d)(3) and (4)
are not directly tied to the disbursement
of title IV, HEA funds. We also disagree
that the distribution requirement would
arrive too late to affect enrollment
decisions. The institution must
distribute information about the
program information website to any
prospective student before the student
signs an enrollment agreement,
completes registration, or makes a
financial commitment to the institution.
If the student is considering enrolling in
a risky program, the acknowledgment or
warning requirements at §§ 668.407 and
668.605 provide additional information
and protection.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested
we clarify whether or how the definition
of ‘‘student’’ in § 668.2 applies to the
new program information website.
Discussion: The definition of
‘‘student’’ in § 668.2 applies specifically
to subparts Q and S. The requirements
related to the program information
website in § 668.43 exist outside of
subparts Q and S. Rather than relying
upon the definition of ‘‘student’’ in
§ 668.2, § 668.43(d)(4) requires an
institution to provide information to
access the program information website
to any enrolled title IV, HEA recipient
prior to the start date of the first
payment period associated with each
subsequent award year in which the
student continues enrollment at the
institution.
Changes: None.
Cooling-Off Period
Comments: One commenter noted
that the NPRM preamble text suggests
that a three-day ‘‘cooling off’’ period
after distributing information about the
program information website is required
for all enrollments, not just those where
warnings are required, while the
regulatory text of proposed
§ 668.43(d)(4) does not include such a
requirement. This commenter asked that
the Department clarify in the final rule
that no pre-enrollment cooling-off
period is required except when a
warning requirement is in place for the
intended program of study.
Discussion: We thank the commenter
for alerting us to the discrepancy
between the proposed regulatory text
and the preamble discussion in the
NPRM. We confirm that the three-day
cooling off period in § 668.605(f)(2) only
applies when a warning requirement is
in place for a GE program and does not
apply to the distribution of information
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70076
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
about the Department’s program
information website under § 668.43(d).
Changes: None.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Student Acknowledgments and GE
Warnings—§§ 668.407 and 668.605
General Support
Comments: Several commenters
expressed support for the proposed
requirement in § 668.407 of the financial
value transparency framework for
students enrolling in a high-debt
program to acknowledge viewing
financial value information before the
institution may enter an enrollment
agreement with the student. One
commenter further noted that
information and market forces alone are
insufficient without an acknowledgment
requirement. One commenter expressed
support for requiring acknowledgments
prior to aid disbursement for poorperforming programs as an effective
approach to improving the outcomes of
students and encouraging the use of
Federal aid at better-performing
institutions.
Discussion: We thank the commenters
for their support. We have retained the
student acknowledgment provision in
§ 668.407 of the financial value
transparency framework, with certain
modifications that we explain below.
Core features mentioned by these
commenters remain the same compared
to the proposed rule. Among those
features are, for example, that the
acknowledgments will not be limited to
information about gainful employment
programs but instead will extend to
certain other postsecondary education
programs; that the acknowledgments
will be submitted by certain students to
the Department through its program
information website; and that the
students will acknowledge having
viewed information on the Department’s
website regarding particular programs
that have substandard results on the D/
E rates measure. As the commenters
understood, the acknowledgments will
help make salient to students, at
important junctures in their decisionmaking processes, certain debt-related
and other information about title IV,
HEA eligible programs, and thereby
assist students in making informed
choices about their postsecondary
education. Such informed decisions
may benefit not only these students but
also the Federal Government and others
to the extent that title IV, HEA support
is channeled, through informed student
choices, toward programs that are not
leaving graduates with unaffordable
debt. Whatever is the full array of values
that people pursue through higher
education and training, including
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
nonpecuniary goals involving service to
others, unaffordable debt can obstruct
the achievement of all those goals.
Changes: None.
General Opposition
Comments: One commenter suggested
that requiring acknowledgment of the
program information website before
disbursement creates a barrier to
receiving title IV, HEA funds, and that
institutions are prevented from adding
additional barriers to title IV, HEA aid
by statute. Many commenters argued
that requiring students to acknowledge
having viewed program information on
the Department’s website prior to
enrollment would delay course
registration and impede the
disbursement of aid to students in need
of such funds to cover costs for housing,
food, and other basic needs.
Discussion: The student
acknowledgment requirement in
§ 668.407 of the financial value
transparency framework does not
conflict with HEA provisions intended
to protect student access to title IV aid.
Instead, this requirement will provide
additional protection to students, as
well as taxpayers, by providing certain
information to students about programs
before institutions enter into enrollment
agreements with students.
Under the transparency framework’s
student acknowledgment rule, in certain
circumstances the Department will
require prospective students to
acknowledge to the Department that
they have viewed relevant information
on the Department’s program
information website before signing an
enrollment agreement with an
institution regarding a certificate
program or graduate degree program.
The acknowledgment will be made
electronically on the Department’s
website. In itself, this step toward
enrollment and title IV, HEA aid is not
onerous for students. Moreover, we will
except undergraduate degree programs
in this final rule (see § 668.407(a)), for
reasons explained elsewhere in this
document, thus avoiding undue burden
for programs where prospective
students may not generally apply to a
particular major (but rather ‘‘declare’’ a
major after being enrolled for some time
in the institution). Furthermore, and
also as explained below, this final rule
states that only prospective students,176
176 In § 668.2 of these rules, ‘‘prospective student’’
is defined as an individual who has contacted an
eligible institution for the purpose of requesting
information about enrolling in a program or who
has been contacted directly by the institution or by
a third party on behalf of the institution about
enrolling in a program. Potential transfer students
are among those who may meet this definition of
‘‘prospective student.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
not enrolled students, must give
acknowledgments when the relevant
program has substandard results
regarding debt burdens under the debtto-earnings (D/E) rates measure (see
§ 668.407(b) and (c)). That adjustment to
the regulation relieves much of the
commenters’ concerns about disruptions
of title IV, HEA student aid, and targets
the requirement to a group of students
most likely to act on the information in
considering where to enroll.
We explained in the NPRM our
decision to limit the transparency
framework’s student acknowledgment
requirement to programs with high debt
burdens under the D/E rates measure,177
and we adopt that position again here.
While many non-GE students surely
care about earnings, non-GE programs
are more likely to have nonpecuniary
goals. Requiring students to
acknowledge low-earning information
as a condition of receiving aid might
risk conveying that economic gain is
more important than nonpecuniary
considerations. In contrast, students’
ability to pursue nonpecuniary goals is
jeopardized and taxpayers bear
additional costs if students enroll in
high-debt burden programs. Requiring
acknowledgment of the D/E rates
ensures students are alerted to risk on
that dimension.178
Moreover, acknowledgments are a
traditional, typical, and simple method
of enhancing awareness of information
before decisions are made. In this
instance, the online mechanism for the
acknowledgment will be relatively
simple, and the decision in question
involves both a student’s education and
Government support for that education.
When programs fail certain performance
metrics, the Department will protect
prospective students and taxpayers by
asking those students to pause and
acknowledge information on the
Department’s program information
website before they enter into an
enrollment agreement for that program.
We agree that institutions may not
add eligibility requirements that would
prevent students or groups of students
from receiving title IV, HEA aid for
177 88
FR 32300, 32336 (May 19, 2023).
note as well that § 668.605 in subpart S of
these regulations, which cover GE programs,
includes warnings from institutions to prospective
and enrolled students as well as acknowledgments
from students to the Department through its
website. Those GE warnings and acknowledgments
will help inform students when GE programs are at
risk of losing title IV eligibility in the following
year. And those GE provisions in subpart S will
complement the student acknowledgment provision
in the transparency framework of subpart Q, the
latter of which helps serve the interests of non-GE
students where program eligibility based on
performance metrics is not at issue.
178 We
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
which they are otherwise eligible. But
these student acknowledgment rules do
not implicate those protections for
students. Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters urged
the Department to ensure that
institutions receive immediate
confirmation when students complete
any required acknowledgments through
the Department’s program information
website, to ensure timely disbursement
of title IV, HEA funds. One commenter
noted that the system for providing D/
E and EP metrics has not yet been
developed and that, as a result,
institutions will not be timely made
aware of metric outcomes, causing a
delay in disbursements of title IV, HEA
funds. One commenter suggested that
the Department instead administer
financial value transparency
acknowledgment requirements through
the Free Application for Federal Student
Aid (FAFSA), which would provide the
relevant information to each student at
an important stage in the student’s
decision process while also eliminating
disbursement delays and relieving
administrative burden on institutions.
Discussion: We understand the
commenters’ concerns and we have
made certain modifications to § 668.407
as proposed. To begin, in this final rule
the Department has decided to require
student acknowledgments under that
regulation before students enter into an
enrollment agreement with the relevant
institution (§ 668.407(c)(1)), rather than
before an institution may disburse title
IV, HEA aid. Pegging student
acknowledgments to an enrollment
agreement should reduce concerns
about unjustified disruptions in title IV
aid, while nonetheless enabling
students to make informed choices at an
adequately early stage in the decisionmaking process. In the final rule, we
also clarify that the Department will
monitor an institution’s compliance
with the pre-enrollment-agreement
acknowledgment requirement through
audits, program reviews, and other
investigations (§ 668.407(c)(2)).
Although the students will make
acknowledgments to the Department
and the Department will operate the
acknowledgment process through its
website, institutions will check whether
the students whom they seek to enroll
have completed the acknowledgment.
As we have explained, an
acknowledgment is a simple yet
important step that students must take
when § 668.407 applies due to
substandard debt-to-earnings results for
the relevant program. In addition, we
reiterate here that § 668.407 will apply
to prospective students (§ 668.407(b)),
rather than enrolled students.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
We recognize that requiring
prospective students to acknowledge the
program information prior to an
enrollment agreement means that some
students will have to take that step
before course registration and
disbursement of aid. We understand
students’ need for timely access to title
IV, HEA funds not only to cover direct
institutional costs but also to cover
indirect educationally related expenses.
We note again, however, that the
acknowledgment process will not be
lengthy or particularly burdensome to
students. And the adjustments to the
rule that we have made in light of
commenter concerns should minimize
disruption while enhancing informed
choice. We believe that such
information is necessary to make an
informed decision about whether to
enroll in a program, and that the
urgency of a student’s need for this
information warrants the potential
delay, which again should not be
excessive or disruptive.
Moreover, in part to reduce burden for
institutions and students, we will limit
the acknowledgment requirement in
§ 668.407 to programs that do not lead
to an undergraduate degree. We believe
this change will better target the
acknowledgment requirements to
programs to which students tend to
directly apply. In addition, our
empirical analysis shows that high-debtburden programs are relatively rare
among undergraduate degree programs
outside the proprietary sector.
Commenters are correct in observing
that the website for delivering financial
value transparency information and
administering acknowledgments is not
yet developed. As we develop the
website and its underlying processes,
we will consider ways to efficiently and
timely transmit confirmation of
completed acknowledgments to
institutions. Nevertheless, we recognize
the potential for delays and uncertainty
as the Department designs and deploys
new systems to implement these
requirements. To minimize disruption
and facilitate a smoother
implementation of the Department’s
program information website and
acknowledgment requirements, the
Department has specified that the
requirements under § 668.43(d) and the
acknowledgment requirements under
§§ 668.407 and 668.605 are not
applicable until July 1, 2026.
We appreciate the commenter’s
suggestion to administer the
acknowledgment requirements through
the FAFSA. However, administering the
acknowledgment process through the
FAFSA would not reach prospective
students who have not yet applied for
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70077
title IV, HEA funds. The
acknowledgment requirement in
§ 668.407 is limited to prospective
students and does not apply to enrolled
students. We believe that administering
the acknowledgment process through
the Department’s program information
website is the most efficient and
effective approach, but we will continue
to analyze ways of most seamlessly
delivering information to students.
Changes: The Department has
specified that the requirements under
§ 668.43(d) and the acknowledgment
requirements under §§ 668.407 and
668.605 are not applicable until July 1,
2026. Furthermore, the Department
requires student acknowledgments
under § 668.407(c)(1) before students
enter into an enrollment agreement with
the relevant institution, and the
Department will monitor an institution’s
compliance with the pre-enrollmentagreement acknowledgment
requirement through audits, program
reviews, and other investigations per
§ 668.407(c)(2). In addition, we exclude
undergraduate degree programs from the
acknowledgment requirements at
§ 668.407(a)(1).
Comments: One commenter suggested
that the Department consider a two-year
pilot study, during which the student
acknowledgment and GE warning
requirements would not be applied, to
review the earnings and salaries of
completers to enable a real-world
comparison of costs and earnings.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s suggestion. Although we
will certainly monitor the median
earnings data obtained under these
regulations, we believe that the need for
the financial value transparency
framework and GE accountability
framework is too great to delay
implementation for a two-year study. As
noted above, however, we recognize the
potential for delays and uncertainty as
the Department designs and deploys
new systems to implement these
requirements. To minimize disruption
and facilitate a smoother
implementation of the program
information website and
acknowledgment requirements, the
Department has specified that those
requirements are not applicable until
July 1, 2026.
Changes: The Department has
specified that § 668.43(d) and the
acknowledgment requirements under
§ 668.407 are not applicable until July 1,
2026. In addition, we exclude
undergraduate degree programs from the
acknowledgment requirements at
§ 668.407(a)(1).
Comments: Many commenters opined
that the proposed warning requirements
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70078
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
in § 668.605 of the GE accountability
framework would irreparably harm
programs, rendering ongoing
recruitment impossible and leading to
program teach-outs and closures after
warnings were provided to students.
Several commenters opined that
requiring warnings after a single year of
failing the D/E rates or EP measure
would fail to account for market shifts,
emergencies, disasters, or other
unforeseen conditions, and would result
in program closures precisely when they
are most needed, such as during an
economic downturn when many
dislocated workers tend to seek
retraining. Several commenters argued
that such a swift warning requirement
does not establish a pattern of poor
performance and would offer
institutions little or no opportunity to
improve troubled programs. One
commenter further noted that sudden
changes to National or State licensure
requirements could have far-reaching
effects, causing more students than
usual to fail licensure exams and
delaying employment, causing programs
to fail one or both metrics, and requiring
warnings due to circumstances beyond
an institution’s control. One commenter
predicted that these consequences
would especially impact institutions
that focus on a single program, such as
cosmetology institutions, claiming that
for such institutions a required warning
would be tantamount to an accelerated
school closure.
Discussion: We believe that enrolled
students and prospective students
should receive a warning when a GE
program may lose eligibility in the
following award year based on its D/E
rates or EP measure. We recognize that
a program’s D/E rates and EP measure
may be atypical in a particular year as
a result of any number of factors and for
that reason a GE program will not lose
eligibility for failing the D/E rates or EP
measure in a single year. However, a
student enrolled in a GE program that
loses its title IV, HEA program eligibility
because of its D/E rates or earnings
premium faces potentially serious
consequences. If the program loses
eligibility before the student completes
the program, the student may need to
transfer to an eligible program at the
same or another institution to continue
to receive title IV, HEA program funds.
Even if the program does not lose
eligibility before the student completes
the program, the student could be,
nonetheless, enrolled in a program
consistently associated with poor
earnings outcomes or unmanageable
levels of debt. Accordingly, we believe
it is essential that students be warned
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
about a program’s potential loss of
eligibility based on its D/E rates or
earnings premium.
The student warning will provide
currently enrolled students with
important information about program
outcomes and the potential effect of
those outcomes on the program’s future
eligibility for title IV, HEA program
funds. This information will also help
prospective students make informed
decisions about where to pursue their
postsecondary education. Some
students who receive a warning may
decide to transfer to another program or
choose not to enroll in such a program.
Other students may decide to continue
or enroll even after being made aware of
the program’s poor performance. In
either case, students will have received
the information needed to make an
informed decision.
We believe that ensuring that students
have this information is necessary, even
if it may be more difficult for programs
that must issue student warnings to
attract and retain students, and even in
cases where an institution only offers a
single program of study. Institutions
may mitigate the impact of the warnings
on student enrollment by offering
meaningful assurances and alternatives
to the students who enroll in, or remain
enrolled in, a program subject to the
student warning requirements.
We disagree with the arguments from
commenters about the effects of
licensing changes. The Department does
not dictate how many hours States
require for students to sit for licensing
tests. And since States dictate the
required program lengths for licensure
or certification, we think it is reasonable
to assume States have considered the
hours needed for someone to then be
able to pass any necessary tests. As
noted already in this discussion, to the
extent there are changes in passage
rates, the fact that programs have to fail
more than once will mitigate this issue
by giving institutions time to improve.
Commenters raised the issue of
potential changes to the length of GE
programs in a part of the NPRM that
will be addressed in a separate final
rule.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed
concern that the rule as proposed would
require programs without aid to send
letters to prospective students stating
that their target occupation is a lowincome profession.
Discussion: This is incorrect. The
warning provision requires schools to
distribute warnings to prospective
students of GE programs that still are
eligible for title IV, HEA aid but are at
risk of losing it so that the prospective
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
student can make an informed decision
cognizant of the possibility that the
program may lose title IV, HEA
eligibility before the student has
completed the program. The warning
language does not identify any
occupations as low-income professions,
but rather alerts prospective students to
the fact that the program in question has
not passed standards established by the
Department based on the amounts
students borrow for enrollment in the
program and their reported earnings, as
applicable, and directs prospective
students to the relevant program
information web page so that they can
explore more contextual information.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter objected
to any warning requirements for GE
programs under subpart S, opining that
student acknowledgments under
subpart Q are sufficient. Another
commenter posited that neither the
warning nor acknowledgment
requirements are necessary because the
requirement to post links to the
Department’s program information
website would be sufficient.
One commenter maintained that
establishing acceptable levels of
performance regarding debt and
earnings exceeds the role of government
because the Department would
substitute its own judgment of
acceptability thresholds for those of
prospective students whose risk
tolerances could potentially differ. This
commenter further postulated that some
students could rely on the Department’s
assessment and still realize poor results,
misinterpret ‘‘no results’’ as an absence
of risk, or unnecessarily forego
opportunities because the Department’s
information increased their risk
aversion.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with the argument that the student
acknowledgment requirements in
§ 668.407 under subpart Q obviate the
need for GE program warning
requirements in § 668.605 under subpart
S. Those rules regard different
programs, and they involve different
information and circumstances. The
student acknowledgment requirements
under subpart Q are limited to
prospective students,179 and they are
limited to programs that do not lead to
179 In § 668.2 of these rules, ‘‘prospective student’’
is defined as an individual who has contacted an
eligible institution for the purpose of requesting
information about enrolling in a program or who
has been contacted directly by the institution or by
a third party on behalf of the institution about
enrolling in a program. And ‘‘student’’ is defined,
for the purposes of subparts Q and S of this part
and of § 668.43(d), as an individual who received
title IV, HEA program funds for enrolling in the
program.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
an undergraduate degree and that have
high debt-burden results under the D/E
rates measure. In contrast, the
acknowledgment and warning
requirements under subpart S apply to
GE programs (including degree
programs) that are at risk of losing title
IV, HEA eligibility because of failing
either the D/E rates or the EP measure,
and include additional content designed
to assist prospective students and
enrolled students facing a potential loss
of funds, such as information about the
transferability of credit, availability of
refunds, and continued availability of
the program of study in the event of a
loss of title IV, HEA eligibility. The
rules for GE program warnings and
acknowledgments are crafted for the
special circumstances of GE programs.
Hence the student acknowledgment
requirements in § 668.407 do not
duplicate the GE program warning and
acknowledgment requirements in
§ 668.605. Although the two provisions
serve some of the same general
purposes, such as informing students
who seek title IV, HEA aid about higher
education programs, § 668.407 does not
eliminate the need for § 668.605.
We further disagree with the
contention that the requirement in
§ 668.43(d)(2) for institutions to post
links to the Department’s program
information website renders both the
acknowledgment and warning
requirements unnecessary. As discussed
above, the timing of the delivery of
relevant information significantly affects
the impact of that information on
students. Absent acknowledgment and
warning requirements, even students
who may have carefully reviewed
information about their program of
study on the Department’s program
information website before enrolling
may be unaware of changes in that
information that may have occurred
since they first accessed the website.
The Department seeks to require that,
for programs where acknowledgments
or warnings are required and before
certain specified events such as the
signing of an enrollment agreement,
students have reviewed up-to-date
information including information that
may implicate the student’s access to
title IV, HEA funds in future years to
complete the program.
With regard to the commenter’s claim
that establishing acceptable levels of
performance regarding debt and
earnings exceeds the role of
government, the Department disagrees
with the commenter’s conclusions. As
discussed in more detail under
‘‘Authority for this Regulatory Action’’
in this document, this framework is
supported in principal part by the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Secretary’s generally applicable
rulemaking authority, which includes
provisions regarding data collection and
dissemination, and which applies in
part to title IV of the HEA, as well as
authorizations and directives within
title IV of the HEA regarding the
collection and dissemination of
potentially useful information about
higher education programs. We also
disagree with the notion that the
Department may not seek to inform
students about program outcomes as
they evaluate programs within a lawful
range of options for Federal Government
support. Existing law and sensible
policy indicate that the Department’s
role in supporting the interests of
students, taxpayers, and others is more
meaningful than some commenters
suppose.
As further discussed above under
‘‘Statutory Authority for GE
Framework,’’ the basic question of
whether the HEA authorizes GE
performance measures has been
resolved repeatedly in the Department’s
favor. Questions of how exactly to
specify the GE performance metrics
involve matters of detail, which the
Department is statutorily authorized and
well-positioned to resolve. It is not only
reasonable but also in accord with all
indications of Congress’s intent to
conclude that a program does not
prepare students for gainful
employment in a recognized occupation
if typical program graduates are left
with unaffordable debt, or if they earn
no more than comparable high school
graduates. In addition, the Department
is fully authorized to share information
about the debt and earnings outcomes of
a program with students, institutions,
and the public to the extent that such
information is available. In whatever
manner the information is labeled,
providing this information to students
will allow them to make better informed
enrollment and borrowing decisions.
Changes: As discussed in General
Opposition under Program Information
website above, we have revised the
reference to the Department’s website as
the ‘‘program information website’’
rather than the ‘‘disclosure website.’’
Scope of Acknowledgments
Comments: Many commenters
expressed support for requiring
acknowledgments from students
entering high-debt-burden GE and nonGE programs, but opined that
acknowledgments should also be
required when students enter lowearning non-GE programs. Some such
commenters further argued that: (1) the
Department’s analysis in the NPRM
concluded that more students enrolled
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70079
in failing non-GE programs than in
failing GE programs; (2) earnings
outcomes are important even to students
in non-GE programs; (3) students do not
differentiate programs by institution
type; and (4) not applying
acknowledgment requirements to nonGE programs that fail the EP measure
would unfairly shield poor-performing
programs at public and nonprofit
institutions from any meaningful impact
of poor performance.
In contrast, a few commenters urged
the Department to exempt all non-GE
programs from student acknowledgment
requirements because of the time and
burden associated with identifying
relevant students and ensuring that they
complete the acknowledgments, or
because many non-GE programs are
intended as only the first steps of a
student’s education and necessarily lead
to graduate or doctoral studies or
clinical work requirements. One
commenter theorized that borrowers
would likely ignore warnings associated
with non-GE program as a result of the
REPAYE income-driven repayment
plan. One commenter suggested that the
Department consider a tiered approach
applying acknowledgment requirements
to GE programs as well as a subset of
low-earning non-GE programs, opining
that such an approach would recognize
the interests of students who prioritize
earnings potential while reducing
burden on institutions.
Discussion: We do not agree that
students should be required to complete
acknowledgments when enrolling in
low-earning non-GE programs, nor do
we agree that not applying
acknowledgment requirements to nonGE programs that fail the EP measure
would unfairly shield poor-performing
programs at public and nonprofit
institutions from meaningful impacts of
poor performance. Public institutions
are subject to additional layers of
oversight and scrutiny at the State or
local level, and nonprofit institutions
typically are subject to oversight by a
board of directors. We do anticipate that
a considerable portion of non-GE
programs lead to high debt burden or
low earnings under the financial value
transparency metrics, and we
understand that many students seeking
to enroll in non-GE programs may place
high importance on improving their
earnings. But we believe that students
who enroll in non-GE programs are
more likely to have nonpecuniary goals,
and requiring students to acknowledge
low-earning information as a condition
of receiving aid might risk improperly
conveying that economic gain is more
important than those nonpecuniary
considerations. We concur that most
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70080
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
students likely compare programs rather
than institution types, but we note that
in many cases the types of programs
offered across institutions significantly
vary, and public and nonprofit
institutions are less likely to
predominately market their programs
solely based on employment and
earnings outcomes.
We also disagree with the requests to
entirely exempt non-GE programs from
student acknowledgment requirements.
As further discussed under ‘‘Burden’’
below, we believe that the burden
associated with identifying relevant
students and ensuring that they
complete the acknowledgments is
reasonable considering the benefit of
providing relevant and timely
information to students who enroll or
continue in non-GE programs that do
not lead to an undergraduate degree and
are associated with high debt burden.
We concur that many non-GE programs
are intended as the initial stage of a
student’s education leading to further
graduate or doctoral studies or clinical
work requirements, but that does not
obviate the relevance of information
about debt outcomes in better informing
students’ enrollment choices, nor does
the possibility that borrowers might
ignore warnings associated with non-GE
program as a result of the REPAYE
income-driven repayment plan take
away the relevance of this information.
Changes: None.
Duration of Acknowledgments
Comments: One commenter indicated
that the duration of the obligation to
obtain acknowledgments under
proposed § 668.407(a)(1) of the financial
value transparency framework appeared
to be unspecified. The commenter
recommended that the duration mirror
that of GE programs requiring warnings
and acknowledgments—that is, until the
program receives two consecutive
passing outcomes.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates the commenter’s suggestion.
We have made changes to
§ 668.407(b)(3) to specify the duration
and frequency of the requirement.
Under revised § 668.407(b)(3),
prospective students must provide
acknowledgments until the program has
passing D/E rates or three years after the
institution was last notified it had
failing D/E rates, whichever is earlier.
The three-year ‘‘look-back’’ period is
relevant only in situations where a
program might fail the D/E rates
measure in one year, but then not have
rates issued by the Secretary in the
following year(s) due to the number of
completers at that program falling below
the minimum threshold necessary for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
the Secretary to issue the program’s
median debt and median earnings. In
choosing to disregard rates over three
years old, the Department is balancing
the goals of making students aware of
the financial risk involved in enrolling
in the program and fairness.
A reduction in the number of
completers at a program is very unlikely
to be indicative of improvement in its
performance. As a result, a program that
fails the D/E rates measure in one year,
and then experiences a decline in the
number of completers leading its D/E
rates not to be issued, is still likely to
be failing the D/E rates measure. At the
same time, we do not believe it fair to
keep the acknowledgment requirement
indefinitely if new rates are not
calculated. After several years,
continuing to base student
acknowledgments on earlier calculated
rates yet without confirmation of
substandard program performance
becomes less helpful to students and
ultimately unreasonable. After
considering the relevant factors and the
importance of an administrable rule, we
have chosen a period of three years as
a reasonable and balanced intermediate
option. That option falls between
maintaining the student
acknowledgment requirement for a
single year (which is the minimumlength option and which would provide
the least protection for students under
the acknowledgment rule) and the
lengthier five-year look-back period
(which we will apply under § 668.602(c)
for determining whether a GE program
has failed a GE measure in two of the
three most recent years when the GE
measures were calculated). Since GE
program eligibility is based on outcomes
over three consecutive years in which
metrics were calculated, the longer fiveyear period is apt for that purpose. We
are not using the same duration set out
in § 668.605 for GE student warnings
and acknowledgments because the
duration in § 668.605 is based on when
an institution mitigates the risk of losing
title IV, HEA eligibility for a GE
program, which is not a factor for nonGE programs.
Changes: We have revised
§ 668.407(b)(3) to require
acknowledgments annually until the
program has passing D/E rates or three
years after the institution was last
notified that the program had failing D/
E rates, whichever is earlier.
Comments: One commenter expressed
appreciation for requiring subsequent
acknowledgments for re-enrolling
students after 12 months, as opposed to
a 30-day window.
Discussion: We thank the commenter
for their support. We believe that a 12-
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
month window appropriately balances
the need for subsequent
acknowledgments for students who reenroll well after providing an initial
acknowledgment with the time and
effort needed to secure the
acknowledgment.
Changes: None.
Content of Acknowledgments and
Warnings
Comments: A few commenters
expressed concern about the
Department’s decision not to publish
specific text for institutions to convey
acknowledgment requirements to
students. These commenters predicted
that offering this discretion to
institutions would risk a patchwork
approach that could provide some
students with more clarity about their
debt prospects than others.
Discussion: We disagree with the
commenters. While institutions may
communicate acknowledgment
requirements differently, the
acknowledgment would be facilitated
through the Department’s program
information website. The Department’s
website will present information to
students in a clear and consistent way
with the goal of ensuring students
understand the risk of incurring high
debt.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted
that the Department makes GE program
eligibility determinations, not
institutions, and opined that the
wording of student warnings regarding
GE programs should convey that the
Department has chosen to revoke
eligibility based on its own criteria.
Discussion: We agree that the
Department, rather than an institution,
makes GE program eligibility
determinations. We disagree, however,
with the assertion that warnings to
students enrolled in failing GE programs
should convey that the Department has
chosen to revoke eligibility based on its
own criteria. Students must receive a
warning when a GE program faces a
potential loss of title IV, HEA eligibility
after failing the D/E rates or EP measure,
but that does not mean that a
subsequent loss of eligibility is certain.
The institution could take swift and
appropriate action that would enable
the program to pass the GE metrics in
subsequent years, and the Department
would encourage that outcome. Even if
a program loses eligibility due to a
subsequent failure of the relevant GE
metric, it would be inaccurate to
characterize that loss of eligibility as a
choice on the part of the Department. As
with other metrics that can result in the
loss of title IV, HEA eligibility, such as
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
failure to achieve acceptable cohort
default rates under subpart N of part 668
or failure to comply with 90–10
requirements at § 668.28, the loss of
eligibility is a predictable and consistent
consequence reflecting the institution’s
failure to meet an established standard,
not a matter of the Department’s
discretion.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed
support for retaining the warnings
provision to require information about
the academic and financial options to
continue education at the same
institution; whether the institution
would refund tuition and fees; and
whether students can transfer credits
earned to another institution through
articulation agreements or a teach-out.
Discussion: We thank the commenter
for their support and will retain these
components of the student warnings for
GE programs.
Changes: None.
Burden of Acknowledgments and
Warnings
Comments: A few commenters opined
that the proposed requirement in the
financial value transparency framework
for students to acknowledge having seen
information about a high-debt-burden
program prior to disbursement of title
IV, HEA funds resembles the
Department’s earlier efforts with the
Annual Student Loan Acknowledgment
(ASLA). These commenters suggested
that, similar to the ASLA, the proposed
acknowledgment requirements should
be optional rather than required because
of the burden to students and potential
delays to title IV, HEA disbursements.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with this suggestion because the ASLA
requirements serve a different purpose
than the acknowledgment requirements
of this rule. The Annual Student Loan
Acknowledgment provides students an
annual reminder of their individually
accrued student debt amounts and
expected repayment obligations, to
enhance debt awareness and encourage
students to limit borrowing. The
acknowledgment requirements in the
rule are targeted towards prospective
students considering enrollment in a
program that does not lead to an
undergraduate degree that leaves
students with a high debt-burden
(§ 668.407), and current and prospective
students of a GE program at risk of a loss
of title IV, HEA eligibility (§ 668.605)
because of failing either the EP or D/E
measures. These acknowledgment
requirements are intended to provide
timely information to assist students in
making informed decisions about
whether to enroll or continue in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
program and is targeted only to students
enrolled or considering enrollment in
programs where the Department has
identified concerns with financial value.
We believe that making this
acknowledgment optional would result
in students not viewing and benefiting
from the information.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters opined
that requirements that institutions
directly deliver GE warnings to
students, and that students acknowledge
having seen the information, would be
inefficient and burdensome to students
and institutions.
Discussion: While we are sensitive to
the fiscal and logistical needs of
institutions, we maintain that any
burden on institutions to meet the
warning and acknowledgment
requirements is outweighed by the
benefits of the debt and earnings
outcomes information to students in
making better informed enrollment and
borrowing decisions. The Department
will clearly notify institutions about any
programs for which warnings or
acknowledgments will be required.
Although, as noted above, we offer
institutions flexibility to tailor
communications about acknowledgment
requirements in a manner that best fits
the needs of their students, the required
text for warning notices for GE programs
will be provided to institutions. We
therefore expect that the burden to
institutions in administering the
warning and acknowledgment
requirements to be manageable.
Changes: None.
Comments: Another commenter noted
that for non-GE programs, it would be
difficult to identify which students
require acknowledgments, as students
may initially be in an undeclared major,
may enroll in multiple majors, or may
change majors mid-term or mid-year.
Discussion: We acknowledge that it
may seem unclear whether
acknowledgment requirements would
apply in the situations noted by the
commenter. For this reason, as
discussed above, we will limit the
acknowledgment requirements of
§ 668.407 to eligible programs that do
not lead to an undergraduate degree. We
believe this change will better target the
acknowledgment requirements to
programs to which students tend to
directly apply, and should eliminate
most of the situations identified by the
commenter including for undeclared
majors, as an undeclared major would
be within the undergraduate degree
program for which an acknowledgment
would not be required. Our analysis
shows that high-debt-burden programs
are relatively rare among certificate
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70081
programs and graduate degree programs
outside the proprietary sector, so we
believe the impacts of this change on
students will be minimal. To be clear
the warnings and acknowledgment
requirements in § 668.605 apply to all
GE programs. Based on the
Department’s data and experience, it is
extremely rare for students to enter such
programs without a declared program
major.
Students enrolled in multiple majors
that do not lead to an undergraduate
degree will complete acknowledgments
for each program for which
acknowledgment requirements would
otherwise apply. For changes of
program, acknowledgment requirements
will begin when the student changes to
a program for which acknowledgments
are required. The Department intends to
provide further sub-regulatory guidance
and training prior to the effective date
of the acknowledgment requirements.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter indicated
that it would be burdensome and
resource-intensive to require
institutions to affirmatively provide
students with transfer information in GE
warnings and suggested that the
Department instead only require
institutions to provide a person for
students to contact for questions about
transfer eligibility.
Discussion: We do not agree that the
requirement to provide transfer-related
information to students in GE warnings
is overly burdensome. The GE warning
provisions generally require institutions
to notify students about the
transferability of credit to other
programs offered by that institution.
These warning provisions do not
broadly require institutions to confirm
the transferability of credit to other
institutions, except in the case of an
established articulation agreement or
teach-out plan. We believe it is
reasonable to expect an institution to be
well aware of its own policies regarding
transfers of credit amongst its own
programs, and to communicate that
information to students when required
in a GE warning. It is equally reasonable
to expect an institution to understand
and communicate details about the
transferability of credit in an established
articulation or teach-out plan to which
the institution is a party. With regard to
the commenter’s suggestion that the
Department instead only require an
institution to provide access to a person
who students may contact with
questions about transfer eligibility, we
expect that institutions would already
provide access to such a resource under
the administrative capability
requirements at § 668.16(h), as such
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70082
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
information would comprise conditions
that may alter the student’s aid package.
Changes: None.
Timing of Warnings
Comments: One commenter claimed
that the requirement to provide
warnings to prospective GE students
who have contacted or been contacted
by an institution on a single occasion is
premature, as there is no indication that
a prospective student is seriously
considering enrolling in the program at
such an early point. Instead, this
commenter suggested that the
Department change the proposed
requirement so that, instead of requiring
warnings at the first contact about the
program, warnings would be provided
before the student signs an enrollment
agreement or makes a financial
commitment to the institution,
consistent with the timing of the
requirement at proposed § 668.43(d)(3)
to provide information about the
Department’s program information
website. This commenter also argued
that a requirement to provide warnings
any time before the GE program loses
eligibility is premature, because changes
made by the institution to the program
or changes in external forces such as the
labor market could cause the program to
pass the D/E rates and EP measure and
remain eligible.
Discussion: We do not agree that a
requirement for an institution to provide
a GE warning to prospective students
who have initially contacted or been
contacted by an institution is premature,
nor do we agree that it would be more
appropriate to provide the GE warning
before the student signs an enrollment
agreement or makes a financial
commitment to the institution. We
believe it is important that prospective
students have this critical program
information early in the decisionmaking process, when students may be
comparing many institutions and
programs, so that students have the
benefit of understanding the debt and
earnings risks of the GE program before
investing significant time into
investigating it.
Additionally, we disagree that a
requirement to provide GE warnings any
time before the GE program loses
eligibility is premature. A GE program
that has failed the D/E rates or EP
measure is at risk for loss of title IV,
HEA eligibility. Such a loss of eligibility
would significantly impact students,
who may be unable to complete their
program of study and may need to
transfer to another program or
institution. Given the seriousness of
these consequences to students, we
believe it is imperative that students are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
alerted without delay and provided
information to better inform their
decision making.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
recommended that we should extend
the deadline to provide warnings to
enrolled students from 30 to 60 days
after the date of the notice of
determination, to provide institutions
the time necessary to identify the
appropriate students and accurately
issue the warnings, while still allowing
institutions to perform other necessary
functions.
Discussion: We believe that 30 days
from the date the Department issues a
notice of determination that a GE
program has failed the D/E rates or EP
measure is a reasonable period of time
for institutions to identify and distribute
warnings to students enrolled in that GE
program. We note that institutions
should generally be well aware of which
students are enrolled in each of the
institution’s programs. The Department
further notes that the administrative
capability regulations at § 668.16(b)(2)
require an institution to use an adequate
number of qualified staff to administer
the title IV, HEA programs. The
Department considers those
requirements to include the distribution
of required GE warnings to students.
Moreover, § 668.16(b)(3) requires
institutions to have a system in place to
communicate to the financial aid
administrator all information
maintained by any institutional office
that impacts students’ title IV, HEA
eligibility, including information about
which students are enrolled in a
particular program of study.
Changes: None.
Cooling-Off Period After Warnings
Comments: One commenter expressed
support for the three-day cooling-off
period after institutions deliver GE
warnings to students, as prescribed in
§ 668.407(f)(2). The commenter
encouraged the Department to consider
additional guidance concerning the type
of communication allowed between the
institution and the student during the
cooling-off period, such as stipulating
that only students can initiate contact
with the institution or communication
from the institution may only occur via
email.
Discussion: We thank the commenter
for their support, and we appreciate the
suggestion to provide additional
guidance on allowable types of
communication during the cooling-off
period. Although we do not believe that
this level of specificity is required in the
regulation, we expect to provide
additional sub-regulatory guidance and
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
training prior to the effective date of the
rule.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
supported the Department’s decision
not to consider a student
acknowledgment or GE warning as
evidence against a borrower’s loan
discharge application, but expressed
concern that institutions could exploit
the warnings and acknowledgment
requirements to try to insulate
themselves from legal liability for
misconduct and recommended that the
Department include language providing
that neither the warnings nor the
acknowledgments can be used by an
institution as a defense to deceptive
practices claims brought by students or
government agencies in administrative
or judicial proceedings.
Discussion: The Department thanks
the commenter for their support. While
we share the commenter’s concern, we
are not changing the regulatory language
because we believe that categorically
limiting the defenses institutions can
raise in the types of litigation noted by
the commenter would extend beyond
the scope of the Department’s authority.
Changes: None.
Alternative Languages for Warnings
Comments: Several commenters
opined that the requirement in
§ 668.605(d) to deliver warnings in
alternative languages is overly vague,
would be burdensome for institutions to
administer, and could result in
discrimination claims. Commenters
suggested that the Department produce
a template format and content that can
be used unilaterally for consistency
across institutions; specify the
minimum required languages for
translation; only require that warnings
be available in English and in any other
language in which the program offers
instruction; or allow the warning to be
posted as a disclaimer on admissions
and enrollment materials.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
that that the requirement to deliver GE
warnings in alternative languages is
overly vague, burdensome, or would
result in discrimination claims. The
Department expects an institution to be
reasonably aware if it admits and enrolls
students with limited proficiency in
English and expects institutions to
provide required GE warnings in a
language relevant to the student.
Translation tools and services are
available to institutions to aid them in
meeting this requirement. We believe
that a warning template would be of
limited use given the variety of potential
information related to transferability of
credit, written arrangements, and teach-
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
outs, and we further note that the
regulation provides a helpful framework
from which to craft the relevant GE
warning language. Specifying the
particular languages required for
translation or only requiring that GE
warnings be available in English and in
the languages in which the program
offers instruction would exclude some
students from benefiting from content of
the GE warnings.
The Department disagrees with the
suggestion to allow the GE warning to
merely be posted as a general disclaimer
on admissions and enrollment
materials. We want students to view any
required GE warnings and have the
opportunity to act upon the information.
The timing and manner of information
delivery can greatly affect whether the
information is received and understood,
such that audiences may use the
information in their decisions. We
believe the GE warning must be
distributed directly to students, not
provided as a general disclaimer. As
discussed further below, the
information at issue is critical for
students when a GE program is at risk
of losing eligibility to participate in title
IV, HEA.
Changes: None.
The First Amendment and Warnings
Comments: A few commenters argued
that a required warning under § 668.605
of the GE accountability framework,
particularly a warning rule using
prescribed language, may constitute
compelled speech that may violate an
institution’s constitutional rights under
the First Amendment. A few such
commenters noted that the First
Amendment extends to people and
corporations alike, covers all types of
lawful speech including factual
disclosures, and protects the right to
refrain from speaking at all. One
commenter further opined that to
survive legal scrutiny, a regulation must
be narrowly tailored to promote a
compelling government interest and
suggested that the Department already
has a narrowly tailored solution in the
College Scorecard, which includes
average student debt and average
earnings. Another commenter posited
that the warning provisions would
require institutions to parrot the
Department’s determination of the
program’s value without regard for the
reliability of the underlying data or the
non-pecuniary value of the program to
students.
Discussion: The Department
disagrees. The relevant provisions of the
GE program accountability framework
will provide students with a
straightforward, purely factual, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
uncontroversial warning when there is a
serious risk that title IV, HEA aid will
not be available at a given GE program.
These provisions will require
institutions that operate these at-risk GE
programs to deliver a one-time warning
to students with whom they already
have a relationship, through enrollment
or outreach and contact as prospective
students.180
As discussed above, the unavailability
of title IV, HEA assistance is an
undeniably serious consequence for
students who are enrolled in or
considering whether to enroll in a GE
program. In addition, the Department
has an overwhelming interest in
enabling informed student decisions
before government resources are
directed toward at-risk programs. And
the communicative burden on
institutions will be minor at worst,
given that they will remain free to
deliver their own messages to students.
A responsible institution would strive to
warn students of the potential loss of
eligibility in these circumstances, and
the rule aims to require participating
institutions to act responsibly. The GE
warning rule is an entirely reasonable
and constitutional requirement for
institutions that benefit from title IV,
HEA aid to students. Such rules are
consistent with the First Amendment’s
guarantee of the freedom of speech.
The justifications for a warning are
especially strong in these
circumstances—situations involving the
need to inform students about the risk
to student aid before Federal funds are
used in programs that are supposed to
train and prepare students for gainful
employment in a recognized occupation
or profession—not education of all
kinds. In commercial speech cases,
courts have asked whether a regulation
directly advances a significant
government interest and is a reasonable
fit between means and ends.181 Courts
also have recognized broader
government authority to require
disclosure of accurate information about
services and products,182 allowing for
180 In
§ 668.2 of these rules, ‘‘prospective student’’
is defined as an individual who has contacted an
eligible institution for the purpose of requesting
information about enrolling in a program or who
has been contacted directly by the institution or by
a third party on behalf of the institution about
enrolling in a program. And ‘‘student’’ is defined,
for the purposes of subparts Q and S and of
§ 668.43(d), as an individual who received title IV,
HEA program funds for enrolling in the program.
181 See, for example, Central Hudson Gas & Elec.
Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557,
564 (1980); Bd. of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y.
v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 480 (1989) (stating that the test
involves reasonable fit).
182 See, for example, Zauderer v. Office of
Disciplinary Couns. of Supreme Ct. of Ohio, 471
U.S. 626, 651 (1985) (testing advertiser disclosure
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70083
the preservation of various consumer
protection laws. Furthermore, the GE
warning rule involves participants in
Federal funding programs, rather than
the regulation of private parties who are
not seeking government support.183
Whatever the applicable test, the GE
warning rule will satisfy it.
The Department’s interests in
informed student decisions and
protection of tax-supported government
resources are obviously important, and
warnings will directly advance those
interests. The rule applies to institutions
that operate at-risk GE programs and
that have established relationships with
their enrolled students, and that have
contact with prospective students. The
Department understands the obvious
threat to students and taxpayers when
the former enroll in programs that turn
out losing eligibility under title IV,
HEA. But the Department does not have
the advantages of institutions in their
ability to deliver necessary warnings to
both enrolled and prospective students,
who are in the process of making
decisions about higher education. And
institutions should understand why
students need to obtain the information
at issue. Given the stakes for students
and taxpayers, the College Scorecard
does not provide a direct warning to
students and, therefore, is not an
adequate substitute for warnings from
participating institutions that their GE
programs are at risk.
In addition, the GE warning rule is
carefully tailored to the Department’s
interests, while the burden on
participating institutions’ speech will be
minimal. As described in § 668.605(a)
and (b), the warning is a one-time
obligation, with a narrow exception for
students who seek to enroll 12 months
after a warning. Furthermore,
§ 668.605(e) and (f) allows institution to
choose among more than one method of
delivering the warning, including an
email or other electronic means. It is
true that, when a warning is delivered
in a written form, § 668.605(e) and (f)
requirements for a reasonable relationship to a
governmental interest in preventing deception, and
for whether the requirements are unduly
burdensome to speech); Milavetz, Gallop &
Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, 559 U.S. 229, 259–
53 (2010) (following Zauderer); Am. Hosp. Ass’n v.
Azar, 983 F.3d 528, 540–42 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (same).
Other First Amendment cases regarding disclosures
are collected in note 165, and we further discuss
the freedom of speech in that discussion of the
Department’s program information website.
183 See generally United States v. American
Library Ass’n, 539 U.S. 194 (2003) (addressing
Federal assistance for internet access and a
condition on assistance involving internet filters);
United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 606 (1995)
(recognizing that private parties may voluntarily
agree to assume an enforceable duty not to disclose
information).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70084
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
indicates that the warning must be
separate from other communications
from the institution. That provision
advances the Department’s interests in
an effectively communicated warning
and does not prohibit other messages
from the institution such as a separate
email or electronic communication.184
In this rule, moreover, the Department
chose not to ask institutions to deliver
continuous warnings such as by posting
messages on their own websites or
incorporating warnings into their
promotional materials. In our judgment,
the warning rule in § 668.605 is
necessary and adequate based on the
Department’s experience and available
information. As a consequence, the
burden on institutions will be
minimized.
Other features of this GE warning rule
likewise moderate any burden on
participating institutions’ preferred
messages. In § 668.605(c), the
Department selected carefully a list of
factual, objective, and commonsense
items to include in warnings to students
when their GE programs are at risk:
notification that the GE program has not
passed the Department’s standards, and
that the program could lose access to
Federal grants and loans when the next
round of results are available; a link to
the Department’s program information
website along with notification that the
student must acknowledge having
viewed the warning through the
Department’s website before
disbursement of title IV, HEA funds;
and, in the event that the program does
lose eligibility to participate in the title
IV, HEA programs, a description of
options within the institution, an
indication of what the institution plans
to do regarding teaching and refunds,
and an explanation of whether students
may transfer credits to other
institutions. Each of these items is
independently valuable. Notably,
however, the rules do not require
participating institutions to adopt the
Department’s view on program value, as
one commenter feared.
Certain details for warnings will be
specified in a future notice in the
Federal Register, consistent with the
terms of § 668.605. But the rule clearly
does not require any script that would
compel any participating institution to
misrepresent its views about what is a
high-value program, low-value program,
or any other topic. The Department does
want students to be warned effectively
and accurately but respects the
184 See CTIA—The Wireless Ass’n v. City of
Berkeley, 928 F.3d 832, 849 (9th Cir. 2019)
(observing that the regulation at issue permitted
retailers to add information if the information was
distinct).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
legitimate interests of participating
institutions to maintain their own views
and to communicate those views. We
will avoid language in the GE warnings
that may be unduly controversial,
misleading, or distracting.185 As we
discuss elsewhere in this document,
institutions can correct errors in certain
calculations to increase the accuracy of
the outcome measures. That process is
part of the Department’s effort to make
available factual information about
programs that is readily comparable and
easily understood by students and the
general public. At the same time,
institutions will remain free to hold and
express their own views on which if any
program metrics are best through their
own channels of communication.
This is not the first instance in which
regulations have required individual,
direct communication by institutions
with consumers about Federal aid.
Apart from the 2014 Prior Rule, section
454(a)(2) of the HEA 186 authorizes the
Department to require institutions to
make disclosures of information about
Direct Loans, and Direct Loan
regulations require detailed
explanations of terms and conditions
that apply to borrowing and repaying
Direct Loans. The institution must
provide this information in loan
counseling given to every new Direct
Loan borrower in an in-person entrance
counseling session, on a separate form
that must be signed and returned to the
institution by the borrower, or by online
or interactive electronic delivery with
the borrower acknowledging receipt of
the message.187 Like the GE warning
rule adopted here, under the loan
counseling rules, institutions must
provide warnings directly to the affected
consumers.
Although we thoroughly considered
the commenters’ concerns regarding the
First Amendment, we are convinced
that the final regulations are
constitutional. Additionally, we took
into account a range of concerns
expressed by commenters regarding
disclosures and warnings, along with
the Government interests in providing
students an effective warning regarding
a program’s performance and eligibility
status. Our judgment, in sum, is that the
GE warning rule is both sound policy
and constitutional.
185 Contrast the warning that was criticized in a
dictum in Ass’n of Priv. Colleges & Universities v.
Duncan, 870 F. Supp. 2d 133, 154 n.7 (D.D.C. 2012),
which expressed concern about a ‘‘statement that
every student in a program ‘should expect to have
difficulty repaying his or her student loans.’ ’’ This
rule does not require such a message.
186 20 U.S.C. 1087d(a)(2).
187 34 CFR 685.304(a)(3).
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Finally, the Department disagrees
with a commenter’s suggestion that the
final rules are impermissible because
any regulation of GE programs is
content-based and subject to strict
judicial scrutiny. The commenter’s
source of concern appears to be the GE
statutes that create the distinctions
between types of institutions and
programs that prepare students for
gainful employment. Regardless, we
reiterate that the D/E rates and EP
metrics focus on completer outcomes
rather than program curriculum. We
also observe that institutions have the
option of not participating in title IV,
HEA student aid programs. Title IV
offers eligible institutions the option to
participate in student aid programs. It
does not compel institutions to prefer
one curriculum over another.
Changes: None.
Students Switching Programs
Comments: A few commenters
recommended that the Department
exempt from the acknowledgment
requirements in § 668.407 all students
who transfer from one program to
another within an institution or who
have not declared a major. For
undeclared majors, a few commenters
suggested that the acknowledgment
requirement apply once the student
selects a major.
A few other commenters suggested
instead that the Department address
program transfers and undeclared
majors by listing all of a school’s
programs on the program information
website, with failing programs in the
credential level of the student at the top
of the list, and clearly marking all
programs as passing or failing, or noting
where no information is available. One
commenter added that we could use the
College Scorecard for this purpose,
provided it included the relevant
information.
Discussion: As noted above, the
student acknowledgment requirements
in § 668.407 are aimed at providing
information to prospective students
before they enter into enrollment
agreements with an institution. While
we agree with commenters’ arguments
that this information would be valuable
to already enrolled students who are
considering changing their major, we do
not believe the benefit of requiring
acknowledgments to such students
would outweigh the administrative
burden of requiring students to provide
such information prior to switching or
declaring majors. Students’ educational
pathways are complex, and they may
form their preferences about an ultimate
field of study course-by-course or classby-class as they progress. There may
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
therefore be no obvious time to trigger
a requirement that they view the
program information website, and
students may effectively have already
made their decisions prior to being
prompted to view the information.
Accordingly, the Department believes it
is best to rely on publicizing the
availability of the information to all
students to increase the odds students
will have the relevant information
available to them to inform choices in
this situation. In this connection, we
may consider listing links to
information about all of a school’s
programs on the Department’s program
information website, with clear
designations of each program’s status
under the financial value transparency
metrics.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter urged the
Department to ensure that transfer
students from one institution to another
acknowledge the information before
receiving Federal aid for the receiving
program.
Discussion: As noted above, transfer
students to an institution are considered
prospective students and so the
acknowledgment requirements in
§ 668.407 apply.
Changes: None.
Impact on Loan Discharges
Comments: A few commenters
recommended that we omit proposed
§§ 668.407(d) and 668.605(h), which
provide that the Department will not
consider a student acknowledgment or
GE warning as evidence against a
borrower’s loan discharge application.
These commenters also opined that the
proposed acknowledgment and warning
provisions are underly nuanced and that
the Department could not rule out in all
cases the possibility that a warning or
acknowledgment would be irrelevant.
Additionally, the commenters noted
that a final rule adopted by the
Department in 2022 188 contained a
provision requiring the Department to
use all information in its possession
when evaluating borrower defense
claims. The commenters contended we
should consider a warning or
acknowledgment to constitute other
relevant information about which the
Department is aware.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with the suggestion to omit
§§ 668.407(d) and 668.605(h). Under the
borrower defense provisions at
§ 685.401(b), actionable circumstances
for a borrower defense claim include a
substantial misrepresentation; a
substantial omission of fact; an
188 87
FR 65904 (Nov. 1, 2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
institution’s failure to perform its
contractual obligations to the student;
aggressive and deceptive recruitment; or
a State or Federal judgment against the
institution, including an institution’s
termination or denial of recertification
by the Department. The student
acknowledgments provided under the
financial value transparency framework
regarding D/E rates, as well as the
warnings and acknowledgments under
the GE program accountability
framework regarding D/E rates and the
EP measure, pertain specifically to a
program’s outcomes that are provided
for students and their family. The
course of dealings and information
shared between an institution and its
students remain the focus of whether a
student qualifies for a borrower defense
discharge. The borrower defense
regulations address the consideration of
the relevant facts related to the borrower
defense claim. A student’s
acknowledgment of a program’s failing
D/E rates would be one consideration
but would not be dispositive. We
anticipate that in acknowledging having
viewed the financial value information
on the Department’s website, borrowers
will consider this information in the
context of other information they may
receive, including from institutions.
Changes: We have revised
§§ 668.407(d) and 668.605(h) to specify
that the provision of an
acknowledgement or warning will not
be considered ‘‘dispositive’’ evidence in
any borrower defense claim.
Comments: One commenter
supported the Department’s decision
not to consider a student
acknowledgment or GE warning as
evidence against a borrower’s loan
discharge application, but expressed
concern that institutions could exploit
the warnings and acknowledgment
requirements to try to insulate
themselves from legal liability for
misconduct and recommended that the
Department include language providing
that neither the warnings nor the
acknowledgments can be used by an
institution as a defense to deceptive
practices claims brought by students or
government agencies in administrative
or judicial proceedings.
Discussion: The Department thanks
the commenter for their support. While
we share the commenter’s concern, we
are not changing the regulatory language
because we believe that categorically
limiting the defenses institutions can
raise in the types of litigation noted by
the commenter would extend beyond
the scope of the Department’s authority.
Changes: None.
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70085
Certification Requirements for GE
Programs—§ 668.604
Comments: One commenter expressed
concern that the timing of the
requirement to certify GE programs may
be overly burdensome for institutions,
given the projected timing for
institutional reporting and notification
of D/E rates and EP measures. This
commenter requested that the
Department extend the certification
deadline beyond December 31, 2024, to
provide a more generous transition
period.
Discussion: We do not anticipate the
initial transitional certification
requirements for GE programs to be
particularly burdensome. Even
institutions with many GE programs
would generally submit a single
transitional certification, likely through
eligcert.ed.gov or its successor system.
While some analysis is required on the
part of institutions to know whether
each GE program meets any applicable
State licensure or accreditation
requirements, the Department notes
that, even in the absence of the GE
certification requirements, institutions
should be knowledgeable about the
programs they offer. We reasonably
expect institutions to keep their
programs current and compliant with
State and accrediting agency policies
and requirements.
The December 31, 2024, deadline for
GE program certification is entirely
reasonable, especially given our
decision to extend the transitional data
reporting option to GE programs, as
discussed under ‘‘Reporting’’ above,
which already provides a more generous
transition period.
Changes: None.
Ineligible GE Programs
Impact of Ineligibility
Comments: Two commenters voiced
concern that a program’s loss of
eligibility to participate in the title IV,
HEA programs will force many students
to withdraw. According to these
commenters, some students may
abandon their education, others may
struggle to find another institution
willing to accept them, and others may
have to retake some of their classes or
restart their clinicals, thereby devaluing
the taxpayer’s investment in the
student’s education.
Another commenter discussed the
lesser options for education in their
field if their institution were to close,
commenting that community colleges
offer less in-depth programs in their
field of study, located in areas with
more limited housing options.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70086
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Discussion: As we illustrate in the
RIA, most students in programs
projected to fail the accountability
metrics have alternatives with better
student outcomes available to them. In
most cases, then, where programs lose
eligibility, we expect most students to
reenroll in programs that result in
higher earnings, less debt, or both. We
acknowledge that a program’s
ineligibility may present some obstacles
to some students’ ability to complete
their programs, but believe that these
obstacles do not justify continuing to
direct further taxpayer funds to
programs that fail to meet standards. By
providing prompt notice and an
overview of options in student
warnings, the GE framework will give
students options to take action before
sinking too much of their time, efforts,
funds, and limited title IV, HEA aid into
programs that do not lead to adequate
student outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters raised
concerns about how the proposed rules
would have disproportionate effects on
cosmetology and massage therapy
schools. Commenters said the rules
would lead to the widespread closure of
these schools. Commenters noted that
many of these schools are also small
businesses. Commenters further opined
that these negative effects would be felt
not just by supposedly bad cosmetology
schools.
Commenters then proceeded to raise
concerns about multiple follow-on
negative effects from these closures.
They raised the possibility of negative
effects on students, including reduced
opportunities for women, people of
color, immigrants, persons with
disabilities, and other groups that are
traditionally underrepresented in
postsecondary education. Commenters
also raised concerns about students
losing access to Federal aid in the
middle of programs, which would
discourage continued enrollment.
Commenters also argued that
community colleges and high schools
would not be able to accommodate the
influx of students interested in
attending cosmetology programs after
many private cosmetology schools
closed. They also claimed schools
would not be able to meet the demand
for massage therapists.
Commenters further cited the effects
of closure on unemployment and local
communities. Commenters particularly
emphasized the effects of businesses
hiring graduates of programs, and the
inability to fill in-demand jobs if
programs and institutions close. They
also said unemployment would increase
from students who would otherwise
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
have found jobs after attending
cosmetology schools. Others claimed
thousands of employees from these
schools would lose their jobs.
Commenters also expressed concern
that closures would have negative
effects on health, safety, and sanitary
conditions as more services would be
provided in homes and in unlicensed or
uninspected facilities.
Discussion: We disagree with the
commenters about the likelihood that
closures would be widespread, as well
as the negative effects that would come
from any closures that might occur.
Regarding the extent of closures,
commenters did not consider the large
numbers of students attending
cosmetology schools but not receiving
Federal aid under title IV, HEA, as well
as the significant number of
cosmetology schools that do not
participate in title IV at all. For
example, across all institutions that
participate in the title IV, HEA programs
that award cosmetology certificate
programs, we estimate the average
institution awarded about 38 percent of
its credentials to students who did not
receive any Federal aid.189 Moreover, a
review of licensure examination results
from California 190 suggests that only
about one-third of schools with students
taking the cosmetology licensure exam
participate in the title IV, HEA
programs. In a similar study cited in the
RIA, Cellini and Onwukwe find the
analogous share in Texas is about 14
percent.191 The same data used in these
studies, along with more rigorous
academic studies,192 suggest that loss of
title IV, HEA eligibility among
cosmetology schools results in schools
adjusting their tuition downward
(suggesting that students may not face
higher costs of attendance despite losing
access to title IV aid), and that their
graduates still pass licensure exams at
similar rates. These findings suggest that
commenters’ assertions that the loss of
189 This analysis compares data on the total
number of awards granted during 2016 and 2017
reported by institutions in the Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS),
which covers both federally aided students and notfederally aided students to the number of graduates
in such programs reported to the National Student
Loan Data System—covering only federally aided
students.
190 California makes these data available at this
website: https://www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/schools/
schls_rslts.shtml.
191 Cellini, S.R. & Onwukwe, B. (2022).
Cosmetology Schools Everywhere. Most
Cosmetology Schools Exist Outside of the Federal
Student Aid System. Postsecondary Equity &
Economics Research Project working paper, August
2022.
192 See, for example, Cellini, S.R., & Goldin, C.
(2014). Does Federal student aid raise tuition? New
evidence on for-profit colleges. American Economic
Journal: Economic Policy, 6(4), 174–206.
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Federal aid eligibility would
automatically lead to closure and a
reduction of opportunities for students
may not be correct. There is a difference
between an institution losing access to
title IV, HEA funds and closing—a
distinction that is particularly evident
in the cosmetology space.
We also emphasize that the Federal
financial aid programs are entitlements
for students, not institutions of higher
education. The GE accountability
framework is designed to protect both
Federal investment and student
investment in programs of higher
education. Students pursuing higher
education are not just investing taxpayer
and personal funds to attend a GE
program, but are also incurring
opportunity costs. The GE eligibility
rules that we adopt here do not assess
whether a program or a school is in
some general sense ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘bad,’’
which are labels the commenters did
not define. More concretely, a student
directing their limited title IV, HEA aid
to a GE program that does not prepare
them for gainful employment in a
recognized occupation has lost the
opportunity to use those funds to attend
a different educational program that
would better serve their goals. The D/E
rates and earnings premium measures
provide objective and evidence-based
metrics to direct Federal funds to
programs that do not saddle students
with more debt than they can afford or
leave them with earnings prospects no
better than they would have had with
only a high school diploma.
We also disagree with the arguments
from commenters about the effects of
closures. First, as we note above, there
is a possibility of enrollment moving
into programs that are still eligible for
title IV, HEA funds or those that operate
solely on the private market. Second,
commenters did not consider the
potential responses from programs that
do pass the GE program accountability
framework. For instance, a passing
program may choose to expand its
enrollment and meet any excess
demand. Students may also choose to
enroll in different types of programs,
which are likely to provide them better
economic benefits since passing
programs generally have a combination
of higher earnings and lower debt. The
Department thus believes commenters
overstate the potential loss of
postsecondary opportunities.
We also disagree with comments
about the negative effects of closures on
particular groups of students, such as
women and students of color. The
Department has already provided an
extensive discussion of the effects of
these rules on women and students of
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
color, which can be found in the
‘‘Demographics and Outcomes’’ section
of this final rule. Many of the other
categories identified by commenters are
not ones where there is any centralized
data collection to identify them, such
that there is no analysis of these
populations that could be conducted.
But we do not see a persuasive reason
why the analysis conducted on women
and students of color would not capture
the largest demographic groups
enrolling in cosmetology, massage
therapy, and other beauty school
programs. Given that cosmetology
schools represent one of the largest
areas of student enrollment in GE
programs, we believe that analysis
properly captures the consideration of
the effects on these groups of students
at beauty schools.
We also disagree with commenters’
arguments about the effects of closure
on local communities and businesses.
The Department does not believe that a
shortage of programs of study within a
field is adequate justification for
directing title IV, HEA funds to
programs that do not lead to adequate
student outcomes. If there is a shortage
of eligible programs in a high-demand
field, this provides an opening for
institutions to expand the capacity of
existing high-quality programs or to
create new high-quality programs to
meet that need. Moreover, employers
also have tools available to them if they
have jobs they cannot fill, such as
increasing wages and benefits. Given
that the beauty industry is predicated on
charging clients for their services, they
could also choose to either reduce their
profit margins or pass some of these
increased costs on to their clientele. We
also reiterate that commenters have not
considered the presence of a significant
number of schools in these areas that do
not participate in the title IV, HEA
programs.
Finally, regarding concerns about the
effects of the rules on health and safety,
we note that cosmetologist licensure
and facility inspection are areas
regulated and enforced at the State and
local levels, not at the Federal level. The
Department trusts the appropriate State
and local entities to maintain
appropriate standards for health and
safety within their jurisdiction.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
mentioned the potential impact of
school closures contributing to a
shortage of practicing veterinarians and
the competitive nature of veterinary
school seats, contending that the loss of
program eligibility would reduce the
number of future veterinarians. Other
commenters suggested that the D/E
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
metric would result in the closure of
numerous Doctor of Veterinary
Medicine programs.
Discussion: While a determination of
ineligibility for title IV, HEA aid may
lead to closure of programs in fields of
high demand that do not produce
adequate student outcomes, we believe
that this does not justify continuing to
steer students and funds to programs
with inadequate student outcomes. It is
also possible that the need for
additional training opportunities in a
particular field may lead to the
establishment of new programs or the
expansion of existing programs that lead
to better student outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters raised
concerns about how the GE
accountability framework and program
ineligibility stemming from it could
create challenges for businesses trying
to hire in the allied health, business,
and nursing spaces.
Discussion: We disagree with the
commenters. Regarding nursing and
business, we do not see evidence of high
rates of ineligibility. As shown in Table
4.18, these two programs have the
smallest number of students in failing
programs out of all the programs with
the largest number of failures. But for
these two areas as well as allied health,
we do not think a shortage of programs
of study within a field is adequate
justification for directing title IV, HEA
funds to programs that do not lead to
adequate student outcomes. If there is a
shortage of programs and excess
demand by employers, then institutions
would have an incentive to expand the
capacity of passing programs or
employers would need to raise wages.
Either solution could help expand the
number of offerings to what is needed.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that cosmetology licensure requirements
provide vital consumer protection and
make any loss of funding to cosmetology
programs unnecessary.
Discussion: The commenter conflates
the protection clients of cosmetology
program graduates receive from
licensure requirements with the
protection the Department seeks to
establish for students themselves under
the GE accountability framework. These
are not equivalent and are not even
protections for the same populations.
The Department believes that both
provide important protections.
Changes: None.
Alternatives to Ineligibility
Comments: One commenter suggested
that title IV, HEA eligibility should be
grandfathered for students who were
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70087
already enrolled in a program at the
time of its first fail rating. Two other
commenters similarly suggested
allowing students already enrolled in a
program losing eligibility for title IV,
HEA aid to continue receiving aid
through completion of the program if
they decided to continue with full
knowledge that the program is failing.
Many commenters voiced a belief that
students already enrolled in a program
that loses eligibility should be able to
choose to continue in the program
knowing the program’s failing rates and
continue to access Pell funds to
complete the program since loans come
with negative consequences if default
occurs, while Pell Grants come without
repayment obligations. One commenter
suggested allowing students to continue
to borrow title IV, HEA loans for
programs that would lose eligibility,
adjusting loan limits for those programs
downward to amounts that would bring
D/E rates to within amounts that would
pass.
Discussion: More harm can come to
students from continuing in a failing
program than merely accruing
additional loan debt. Students are
limited in the amount of time for which
they can receive Pell Grants. Continuing
in a failing program and receiving a Pell
Grant would exhaust some of their
eligibility. Continuing in a program that
produces inadequate student outcomes
will also consume student time and
effort. This invested time comes with
more readily apparent costs, such as
increased costs for childcare or lost
opportunities for paid employment, but
also with the loss of substitutes—with
the time invested in a failing program,
the student could have been pursuing a
course of study that would have better
advanced their career.
It is also possible that if the
institution became ineligible to
participate in the Direct Loan program,
but Pell funding continued, students
would merely replace their Federal
student loans with private loans.
Continuing in a failing program without
Direct Loans would leave students in a
worse position than if we took no
action.
It would be mathematically
unworkable to lower limits on Direct
Loans to amounts that would cause a
failing program to pass D/E rates. D/E
rates are calculated across a student’s
entire enrollment in a program and
different students may take a different
number of years to complete a program,
so annual borrowing could not be
precisely adjusted. Additionally, since
students could potentially replace
lowered Direct Loan amounts with
private loan debt, keeping their debt
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70088
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
amount constant, it would be
impossible to precisely lower D/E rates
by lowering limits on title IV, HEA
borrowing alone.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested
that the GE accountability metrics be
paired with further reporting
requirements but not tied to title IV,
HEA eligibility. Another commenter
recommended removing all references
to the GE rule in the context of financial
responsibility, administrative capability,
and certification procedures, broadening
the GE rule for uniform application
across all program types.
Discussion: As further discussed in
this document and in the NPRM,193 we
believe that for GE programs, further
steps beyond information provisions are
necessary and appropriate. The
Department intends to integrate the GE
accountability metrics into all relevant
aspects of Federal student aid
administration covered by the final rule.
Changes: None.
Timeframe for Warnings and
Ineligibility
Comments: Several commenters
suggested extending the timeframe for
loss of title IV, HEA eligibility to failing
in three out of any four consecutive
award years for which metrics are
calculated, with one of the commenters
positing that allowing an additional year
would limit loss of eligibility to
programs truly demonstrating a pattern
of poor performance versus merely
experiencing a market shift or other
unforeseen event. This commenter
additionally suggested granting waiver
authority to the Secretary for any
program training students to be essential
workers, for programs training students
to enter professions experiencing
critical national job shortages, or as a
result of a national, State, or local
emergency declared by the appropriate
authority. Another commenter similarly
suggested changing the provision for
loss of eligibility to three consecutive
fails.
Discussion: In the balance between
gathering meaningful data and acting
quickly enough to protect students and
taxpayers from failing programs, an
unavoidable amount of delay is already
added to the rate and threshold
calculation process for the time it takes
for the data used in calculations to
become available. The Department
believes that allowing an additional year
of failing GE metrics before a program
becomes ineligible for title IV, HEA
program participation would add too
much risk for students in failing GE
193 88
FR 32342.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
programs. We further note that the
accountability framework already
accounts for sudden market shifts in
that a GE program will not lose
eligibility based on failing the D/E rates
or EP measure for a single year. Waiving
ineligibility for GE programs designed to
train students to be essential workers or
to work in fields experiencing labor
shortages could especially fall short of
protecting students—if program
graduates do not have sufficient
earnings when the field is at peak
demand, those students will be at an
even greater disadvantage if demand
goes down.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
mentioned that closures with little
notice to students are already
problematic. This commenter voiced
concern that the rule as proposed will
cause still more schools to close within
two years.
Discussion: Under the GE
accountability framework, institutions
are required to issue warnings when a
GE program is at risk of becoming title
IV, HEA ineligible based on the next
calculation of D/E rates or earnings
premium measure. This would occur if
the GE program had a failing D/E rate
within its last two rate calculations or
if the program failed the earnings
threshold within the last two
measurements. We believe these
warnings will provide students
adequate notice and information to
decide how they wish to proceed.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter opined
that if a GE program did not have
metrics calculated for two years, the
programmatic eligibility clock should
restart, citing that programs and their
students are continually evolving and
that most community college GE
programs will be one year or shorter in
length, making a cumulative evaluation
period that could last up to four years
not a reasonable period.
Discussion: The Department
acknowledges that programs and
student populations may evolve over
time at any institution, but this does not
negate the importance of using the best
available data to hold programs
accountable for student outcomes.
Changes: None.
Period of Ineligibility and Substantially
Similar New Programs
Comments: Several commenters
expressed the opinion that an
institution voluntarily discontinuing a
program should not be penalized if it
produces failing rates in its final years.
Two of the commenters did not think it
made sense to employ the three-year
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
block on title IV, HEA eligibility for new
programs substantially similar to
programs voluntarily discontinued
either before or after D/E rates or
earnings premium measures are issued
but allow eligibility for re-established
programs that are discontinued before
the metrics go into effect. One of these
commenters expressed that they
understood the need to prevent schools
from using voluntary discontinuation to
evade consequences, but that they
believed the same goals could be
achieved by limiting the block to
programs that already had at least one
failing accountability metric. A few
commenters expressed the belief that
CIP codes sharing the first four digits
varied too greatly to be substantially
similar, citing examples from the allied
health fields and the cosmetology and
related personal grooming fields, and
that use of the six-digit CIP level would
be sufficient to prevent manipulation.
One commenter stated that this
approach is problematic for institutions
that provide specialized instruction in a
narrow field such as cosmetology.
Another of these commenters believed
that the 3-year period was arbitrary and
that its use in the rule on cohort default
rates was not sufficient justification.
Another commenter believed that the
rule as proposed will block an
institution from winding down a
program based on market changes and
reintroducing an improved version for
three years, even if the newer program
is designed to be shorter, less expensive,
and more attractive to employers.
Discussion: As one of the commenters
noted, this provision is designed to
prevent institutions from evading
consequences for programs producing
inadequate student outcomes by
voluntarily discontinuing a program
before it could lose eligibility based on
D/E rates or the earnings premium.
Along those same lines, the period of
ineligibility for new programs with
substantial similarity would prevent
institutions from bringing back a
program that is failing or at risk of
failing under a similar CIP code with
few changes. While 6-digit CIP codes
within some 4-digit CIP categories may
have some more variation than others,
there are still sufficient common
elements to programs within a 4-digit
CIP category to raise concerns that an
institution with one failing program
within the category should wait and
reassess elements such as program
design and market demand before
establishing a new eligible program
within the same category. The
Department considers three years to be
an appropriate waiting period. The
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Department selected a three-year period
of ineligibility because it most closely
aligns with the ineligibility period
associated with failing the Cohort
Default Rate, which is the Department’s
longstanding primary outcomes-based
accountability metric at the institutional
level. Under those requirements, an
institution that becomes ineligible for
title IV, HEA support due to high
default rates cannot reapply for
approximately three award years.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested
not imposing the three-year period of
ineligibility for programs that have lost
eligibility and allowing schools to
reintroduce their programs redesigned
to meet GE standards.
Discussion: The Department believes
that omitting the period of ineligibility
would provide inadequate protection for
students against a program being
quickly re-established with the same
elements that led to its loss of eligibility
in the first place. Since it would require
several years of more data before debt
and earnings outcomes could be
determined for the ‘‘new’’ program, this
would subject student futures to an
unacceptable level of risk.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested
disregarding any fail rating more than
four years old, providing an illustrative
example of how under the rule as
proposed in § 668.602(c) and (e), a
program only large enough to receive
rates in certain years could have failing
rates in years one and seven and
maintain eligibility (since the older rate
would be disregarded under
§ 668.602(c) because the program had
four or more consecutive award years
without rates), while if the program had
a passing rate in the interval, with
failing rates in years one and seven and
a passing rate in year four, it would lose
eligibility for failing in two of the three
consecutive years for which rates were
calculated.
Discussion: The Department thanks
the commenter for pointing out the
potential for this unintended
consequence. The Department agrees
that the situation described by the
commenter is undesirable. This
provision of the rule is meant to avoid
using measures of program performance
too far in the past to determine program
eligibility.
Changes: In response, we have
modified this provision in § 668.602(c)
and (e) to state that in determining a
program’s eligibility, the Secretary will
disregard any D/E or EP measure that
was calculated more than five years
prior.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
70089
without providing institutions a
mechanism to review or challenge the
data and offer other evidence, as well as
appeal D/E and EP outcomes.
Referencing language from the
preamble to the notice of proposed
rulemaking for the 2014 Prior Rule, in
which the Department stated that ‘‘[t]he
proposed regulations are intended to
provide institutions, in the interest of
fairness and due process, with an
adequate opportunity to challenge the
completion, withdrawal, and repayment
rates and median loan debt determined
by the Department,’’ 194 one commenter
asserted that the Department is not
adhering to its previously acknowledged
standard of due process. That
commenter, as well as others, noted that
Other Concerns Related to Program
the 2014 Prior Rule afforded institutions
Ineligibility Under the GE Framework
the opportunity to review and correct
Comments: One commenter expressed the list of students (with the Secretary
the opinion that it was unfair to make
determining in consideration of
program eligibility determinations based evidence submitted, whether to accept
on data from years preceding the
those corrections), challenge the
effective date of the final rule.
accuracy of the loan debt information
Discussion: The HEA requirement that that the Secretary used to calculate the
gainful employment programs prepare
median loan debt for the program, and
students for gainful employment in a
file an alternate earnings appeal to
recognized occupation predates any
request recalculation of a failing or
years for which data will be gathered for ‘‘zone’’ program’s most recent final D/E
the GE accountability framework.
rates using earnings data obtained from
Changes: None.
an institutional survey or StateComments: One commenter expressed
sponsored data system. These
the opinion that these will be the
commenters objected that the proposed
strictest debt-to-earnings metrics to date,
rule does not offer those provisions,
making it increasingly difficult for
allowing only for provision of the
programs to remain eligible.
student list to institutions (assertedly
Discussion: The Department is
without the opportunity for review or
committed to protecting student and
correction) and an appeal where the
taxpayer resources with strong
Secretary has initiated a termination
accountability metrics and, as noted in
action of program eligibility under
the RIA, we expect that most programs
subpart G of part 668 (Student
will pass the D/E rates metric.
Assistance General Provisions).
Changes: None.
Discussion: The Department thanks
Challenges, Hearings, and Appeals
the commenter who wrote in support of
the appeal provisions in § 668.603. At
Comments: One commenter
supported the Department’s proposal in the same time, we disagree with the
commenters who asserted that the
§ 668.603 to provide an opportunity for
Department must include the same
institutions to appeal a determination
opportunities for appeals and challenges
that a program fails the D/E test on the
as those contained in the 2014 Prior
grounds that the Department made an
Rule to afford institutions due process
error in calculating the institution’s D/
E ratio. The commenter offered that this or fairness. We do not believe the appeal
procedures urged by the commenters are
provision provides important due
required by the Due Process Clause of
process protections to institutions.
the Fifth Amendment or any applicable
In contrast, many commenters
principle of fairness.
objected to the Department’s decision
The threshold question for procedural
not to include review, challenge, and
due process purposes is whether a
appeal opportunities in the proposed
person has been or will be deprived of
rule that were present in the 2014 Prior
a property interest protected by the U.S.
Rule, primarily on the grounds of due
process and fairness. These commenters Constitution.195 But institutions lack
maintained that the Department cannot
194 79 FR 16426, 16485 (Mar. 25, 2014).
reasonably remove the eligibility of a
195 See Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408
program, potentially resulting in the
U.S. 564, 569 (1972); see also Assoc. of Private
closure of an institution, based on
Colleges and Universities v. Duncan, 870 F. Supp.
calculations derived from certain data
Continued
Comments: One commenter voiced a
concern that loss of title IV, HEA
eligibility for massage therapy programs
would have a ripple effect on the
industry, requiring current massage
therapists to take the time to train new
entry-level students.
Discussion: The Department best
serves students and taxpayers by
regulating the use of title IV, HEA funds
so they support students in attending
programs that lead to adequate
outcomes. If the occupational licensure
structure in a State or locality permits
a training path outside of institutions of
higher education, that is beyond the
Department’s jurisdiction.
Changes: None.
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70090
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
such a protected interest in continued
eligibility to participate in Federal
student aid programs.196 A unilateral
expectation of benefits is insufficient,
and institutions are neither promised
nor led to believe that they will receive
a continuing stream of Federal support
without change in student aid rules.197
In the context of title IV, HEA and GE
programs, institutions and programs
must satisfy a number of requirements
for eligibility beyond the GE metrics in
this rule, including standards related to
administrative capability and financial
responsibility. Moreover, neither
institutions nor programs are direct
beneficiaries of title IV, HEA aid to
students. With respect to the GE
accountability metrics, what will be at
issue is specific program-level eligibility
for Government support, not whether
the institution and the other educational
programs it offers may continue to
participate in the Federal student aid
programs. That indirect relationship to
the benefit further weakens claims that
institutions have a legitimate
entitlement to continuing support from
the Federal Government under title IV,
HEA.198
Additionally, the final rule’s appeal
process is fair. The risk of error is low
in the first place because the
Department will use quality data on
earnings from a Federal agency
combined with other reliable
information, including information
supplied by institutions themselves. We
have explained those choices at length
in the NPRM and in this document. The
calculations in question, moreover, are
not fairly subject to open-ended debate
or significant discretion. Regarding GE
program accountability, the rules for
calculating D/E and EP results specify
clear formulas, thereby diminishing the
value of additional procedures. On the
flipside, and in view of the
Department’s experience with appeals
2d 133, 154 n.7 (D.D.C. 2012) (‘‘Without a property
right in their participation in Title IV programs,
schools cannot press a Fifth Amendment challenge
to the regulation of those programs.’’).
196 See Ass’n of Accredited Cosmetology Sch. v.
Alexander, 979 F.2d 859, 864 (D.C. Cir. 1992);
Dumas v. Kipp, 90 F.3d 386, 392 (9th Cir. 1996);
Ass’n of Proprietary Colleges. v. Duncan, 107 F.
Supp. 3d 332, 348–52 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (rejecting
procedural due process challenges to the 2014 Prior
Rule based on asserted interests in property and
liberty); Ass’n of Priv. Colleges & Universities v.
Duncan, 870 F. Supp. 2d 133, 154 n.7 (D.D.C. 2012)
(‘‘Without a property right in their participation in
Title IV programs, schools cannot press a Fifth
Amendment challenge to the regulation of those
programs.’’).
197 See Ass’n of Accredited Cosmetology Sch. v.
Alexander, 979 F.2d at 864 (concluding that
‘‘schools have no ‘vested right’ to future eligibility
to participate’’ in the Guaranteed Student Loan
program).
198 See Dumas, 90 F.3d at 392.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
under prior GE rules, we are convinced
that adding such procedures will not
improve decisions but will increase
delays, expenditures, and other
burdens. The rules will give adequate
assurance of accurate decisions, while
serving the Department’s important
interests in supporting career training
that results in enhanced earnings and
affordable debt.
Although the Department concluded
that the alternate earnings appeals
available under the 2014 Prior Rule
were not effective, these rules will
provide appeals that are meaningful and
manageable. Section 668.603(b) states
that if the Secretary terminates a
program’s eligibility, the institution may
initiate an appeal under subpart G of
this part if it believes the Secretary erred
in the calculation of the program’s D/E
rates under § 668.403 or the earnings
premium measure under § 668.404.
Subpart G of part 668, specifically
§ 668.86(b), outlines the procedure for
institutions to challenge decisions to
limit or terminate a program. These
procedures are designed to provide an
opportunity to correct any errors in the
calculation of a program’s D/E rates
under § 668.403 or the earnings
premium measure under § 668.404.
These procedures include issuance by a
designated Department official of notice
informing the institution of the intent to
limit or terminate that institution’s
participation, through a possible appeal
of the initial decision of the hearing
official to the Secretary. In addition,
under § 668.405, institutions will be
provided a ‘‘completer list’’ of all
students who completed each program
during the cohort period and given an
opportunity to correct the information
about students on the list.
It is true that, unlike the 2014 Prior
Rule, the rules adopted here will not
allow for institution-by-institution
challenges to draft D/E rates based on
evidence provided by the institution
that loan debt information used to
calculate the median loan debt for a
program is incorrect. However, median
loan debt for a program is not a statistic
that the Department creates on its own,
but rather is derived from student
enrollment, disbursement, and program
data, or other data the institution is
required to report to the Secretary to
support its administration of, or
participation in, title IV, HEA. We
expect that institutions will review
these data and confirm they are correct
at the time of reporting. Should any
reported data contain inaccuracies, the
institution must timely correct that data.
The Department provides ample
opportunity for an institution to
evaluate the accuracy of its data through
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reconciliation and closeout procedures
at the end of each award year. Section
668.405 will require that, in accordance
with procedures established by the
Secretary, the institution update or
otherwise correct any reported data no
later than 60 days after the end of an
award year. Inasmuch as participating
institutions have access in real time to
Department systems through which
relevant data are reported—that is, COD
and NSLDS—plus an appropriate period
of time to correct any erroneous data,
the presumption of accuracy with
respect to such institution-provided
information is fair and reasonable.
Accordingly, these regulations do not
establish a protocol for the publication
of draft rates and an institutional
challenge to those rates based on
incorrect data being used to calculate
median loan debt.
We acknowledge the references to
fairness and due process in the
preamble of the Department’s 2014 Prior
Rule. We remain committed to making
decisions based on sufficiently reliable
information that is relevant to the GE
program accountability framework. We
disagree, however, that due process or
fairness requires the Department to
adopt precisely the same appeals
processes as in 2014, regardless of
current circumstances and other rules
that affect the reliability of the
information needed to apply these rules.
To the extent that constitutionally
protected interests are implicated when
institutions seek to benefit from
government support, we observe that
due process remains a flexible concept
that accounts for considerations that
include a relatively low probability of
significant error and the Government’s
interest in reducing fiscal and
administrative burdens.199
As explained above, institutions with
programs that are not eligible to
participate in title IV, HEA as the result
of failing GE rates can appeal under
subpart G of part 668 if they believe the
Secretary erred in the calculation of the
program’s D/E rates under § 668.403 or
the earnings premium measure under
§ 668.404. We also note that some
commenters mischaracterized these
rules in asserting that the Department
will limit institutions to a review of
completer lists without an opportunity
to make appropriate corrections. As
previously discussed, § 668.405 will
allow institutions to correct information
about students on the list. Median loan
debt challenges also are discussed
199 See, for example, Mathews v. Eldridge, 424
U.S. 319, 334–35, 347 (1976); see also Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830, 852 (2018) (reaffirming
that due process is flexible).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
students in those programs, subjecting
them to the potential harm these
regulations are designed to prevent.
Restricting a cap to the first year that an
institution is subject to program
sanctions in no way mitigates these
concerns.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
claimed that cosmetology programs
have limited ability to improve or
reform because of State requirements for
minimum hours and curriculum,
restrictions on offering programs
substantially similar to failing programs,
costs of opening or expanding new
programs, and limits to their ability to
offer distance education.
Discussion: The commenters’ claim
that State regulation prevents program
improvement is not borne out by the
data on the median debt of cosmetology
programs within States. As Figure 1.4
shows, median debts for undergraduate
certificate programs in cosmetology vary
above. Alternate earnings appeals are
addressed in a separate discussion
below.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters,
within the context of supporting the
reintroduction of alternate earnings
appeals, suggested the Department
‘‘cap’’ the number of programs at a given
institution that can lose eligibility as a
result of failing D/E rates or EP
measures. One commenter broadly
suggested a cap for the first year.
However, commenters were not
otherwise specific as to how such a cap
might be applied.
Discussion: We are not convinced that
a cap on the number of programs offered
by a single institution that can lose
eligibility is an appropriate or logical
measure. Failing programs allowed to
remain eligible as the result of such a
cap would be no more successful than
those that lost eligibility; however,
institutions would still be able to enroll
70091
widely within all States. In Figure 1.4,
each dot represents the median debt of
a program, grouped by the State where
the program is located using data from
the 2022 PPD described in the RIA. This
variation suggests that institutions can
and do influence the amount of
borrowing their students acquire and
can therefore improve their outcomes.
At a minimum, such varying program
results within States are inconsistent
with the theory that State regulation
tightly restricts opportunities for
program improvement. Furthermore, we
note that, on its face, the restriction on
offering programs that are substantially
similar to failing programs does not
prevent institutions from improving
their existing programs. Rather, it
plainly is a safeguard against
institutions relabeling failing programs
under different CIP codes without
actually improving them.
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
Figure 1.4: Median Debt Levels Among Undergraduate Cosmetology
Certificate Programs Across States
Medla11 rrfgram De!,>t_Amounts Across UG Cer:tffic~ Programs by Stilte
20,000
,,,,~
t«~,.;,,t,,,:,,;
.. ~.,;;
•f'"~";"~'
,.:.
,J"; " " " " "
15,000
z
~·
.i
"Cl
G,)
:5 10,000
E
I!
C)
e
ll.
5,000
;,:
0
'~'~"~'~,>~,; •i),t'"•~••H:«•••,,:,.,~;,.,
1
I
I
It
I
j
i
i
i
i
i
j
i
;,..,,i .•., ..... ,:, .• ,.e,:,••••••;••••.......... t,,♦,.,~
i i i
i
j
i
i
i
i
i·
i
i
j
i
i
i i i i i
i
I I
•
1. •
,t,,~,,/,.,:n~•·•~,,;),
I
I
I
J
I
;
I
;
I
,.,,.
j
ii
i
State
BILLING CODE 4000–01–C
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed
the opinion that closures resulting from
the absence of an appeal process will
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
result in beauty professionals having no
options for schooling and the
displacement of thousands of
employees. Another commenter listed
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
negative effects that the COVID–19
pandemic had on the beauty industry,
including the closure of salons and spas,
the reluctance of clients to return, and
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ER10OC23.003
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
~~~-""'~✓~~~~~~~~
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70092
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
the difficulty service providers
experienced in reestablishing clientele,
all of which reduced earnings. The
commenter inquired how programs can
accurately be measured without an
appeal process for this time period.
Another commenter posited that return
on investment (ROI) should not be the
only standard by which the value of an
educational program is measured, and
that there is inherent value in
professions that help people, such as
social worker, counselor, hairstylist, or
esthetician. The commenter asked that
due process in the form of an appeal on
that basis be offered in final regulations.
Discussion: Regarding concerns about
loss of educational opportunity for those
seeking to enter the beauty profession
and possible displacement of persons
employed in the industry, the
Department does not intend either of
those results. We accept the need for
quality programs in the fields of
cosmetology and esthetics, as well as
people to train those entering these
occupations. However, those views do
not obviate the importance of program
outcomes that indicate completers have
a reasonable expectation of reported,
verifiable earnings exceeding those of a
high school graduate and sufficient to
service their education debt. Nor do
predicted results for a given field of
training establish any shortfall in the
rules’ procedures. Although some
programs will not be eligible for title IV,
HEA participation as the result of
repeatedly failing D/E rates or EP
measures, we are not convinced that
opportunities for students who want to
train for a career in the beauty industry
will be materially circumscribed by the
implementation of these rules,
including the provisions for appeals.
Moreover, we believe that the increased
confidence students will have in the
economic advantages of enrolling in
programs that do establish passing D/E
rates and EP measures outweigh the
drawbacks associated with no longer
being able to choose from among those
programs that are not eligible under
these rules.
We acknowledge that the COVID–19
pandemic likely affected the earnings of
workers in salons, spas, the beauty
industry, and many other industries
besides. However, we do not find a basis
for offering special appeals to any one
field of programs or more broadly. As
explained elsewhere in this document,
the Department is not postponing action
until such time as no earnings data
through 2022 is included in D/E rate or
EP calculations. Accordingly, and in
consideration of the fact that most
industries employing the graduates of
GE programs were, to some extent,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
affected by the pandemic, permitting
appeals based on this circumstance
would effectively obviate the full effect
of the rule until at least the 2026–2027
award year. We do not view the effects
of the pandemic as being germane to the
discussion of alternate earnings appeals.
We agree with the commenter who
asserted that ROI is not the only
standard by which the benefits of an
education should be measured, and that
professions that help people have value
beyond any remuneration that can be
expected. Elsewhere in this document
and in the NPRM, we have affirmed that
students rely on a variety of appropriate
considerations in choosing among
postsecondary education options and
that postsecondary education programs
may reflect and serve a range of
values.200 However, having income
sufficient to repay the debt incurred for
a program is a commonsense and
fundamental part of any assessment of
whether the program prepares students
for gainful employment in a recognized
occupation. It is also reasonable in that
assessment to expect that program
graduates will, on average, earn more
than a high school graduate. Last, we
note that the GE program measures are
not, strictly speaking, a determination of
ROI, which is a formula for determining
how well a particular investment has
performed relative to others. As to the
commenter’s suggestion that the
Department establish an appeal based
on the extent to which a program’s
graduates help people or provide other
societal benefits, we do not see how
such an appeal could be anything other
than entirely subjective and, therefore,
lacking in fairness. Moreover, the
suggestion seems to involve the
commenter’s preferred measures for
program success, rather than statutory
requirements or the adequacy of
procedures used to determine program
eligibility.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
asserted that proposed § 668.603(b),
which provides a basis for appeal if a
program loses eligibility upon
completion of a termination action of
program eligibility, is a misapplication
of the regulations applicable to
limitation, suspension, and termination
actions under subpart G, while still
failing to give institutions adequate
appeal rights. One commenter, while
stressing the absence of challenges and
appeals present in the 2014 Prior Rule
and arguing for their reintroduction,
noted that subpart G does provide
institutions with notice and an
200 See, for example, 88 FR 32300, 32306, 32322
(May 19, 2023).
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
opportunity to request a hearing prior to
suspension, limitation, or termination of
that institution’s participation in the
title IV, HEA programs and that no
limitation, suspension, or termination
occurs until after the requested hearing
is held. Alternatively, an institution
may submit written materials to the
designated Department official, who is
required to consider the materials before
determining whether to limit, suspend,
or terminate participation. The
commenter further offered that, even
after an initial decision, regulations
allow that an institution may appeal the
initial decision to the Secretary. Citing
proposed § 668.91(a)(3)(vi), which
stated, ‘‘In a termination action against
a GE program based upon the program’s
failure to meet the requirements in
§ 668.403 or § 668.404, the hearing
official must terminate the program’s
eligibility unless the hearing official
concludes that the Secretary erred in the
applicable calculation,’’ another
commentor expressed concern that the
provision improperly removes the
official’s discretion to make an
eligibility determination based on the
facts and circumstances before them.
The commenter also contended that,
because the rule requires the official to
terminate a program’s eligibility without
the opportunity for presentation of the
case before a hearing official, it violates
the institution’s due process rights.
Other commenters expressed the
opinion that limiting the basis for any
appeal to a calculation error on the part
of the Department unfairly denies
institutions any opportunity to present
data that are potentially more accurate
than the data on which the Department
based its calculations.
A number of commenters objected to
the appeal process in subpart G being
limited to fully certified institutions.
Commenters acknowledged that
procedural rights for provisionally
certified institutions differ from those of
fully certified institutions with respect
to institutional eligibility but argued
that (unlike for institutional eligibility)
certification status has no bearing on
program-level GE outcomes or the
resulting eligibility status of those
programs. The commenters further
argued that inasmuch as fewer
procedural protections would be
accorded provisionally certified
institutions and opportunities to
challenge underlying data are absent,
the proposed rules effectively create two
separate sets of analysis for GE programs
that share the same outcome.
Some commenters suggested the
introduction of an appeal based on
recalculating GE metrics using an eightdigit OPEID number. The commenters
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
offered that alternate results calculated
at the eight-digit level would indicate
where, despite failing across all
locations (presumably at the six-digit
CIP level), a program is passing in
specific markets and locations,
preventing those successful programs
from becoming ‘‘collateral damage.’’
Commenters added that the more
specific rates and related information
would have greater relevance to
students attending individual locations.
Discussion: We disagree with the
commenters who asserted that the basis
for appeal in § 668.603(b) is a
misapplication of the regulations in
subpart G of part 668 and applicable to
fine, limitation, suspension, and
termination proceedings. Under the
rules adopted here, a GE program that
has failed the D/E rates measure or the
earnings premium measure in § 668.402
in two out of any three consecutive
award years is ineligible and its
participation in the title IV, HEA
programs ends upon the earliest of the
issuance of a new Eligibility and
Certification Approval Report (ECAR)
that does not include that program,
completion of a termination action of
program eligibility, or revocation of
program eligibility, if the institution is
provisionally certified. Nothing in the
regulations applicable to termination
proceedings limits the Department in
taking such action in circumstances
where a GE program has failed the D/E
rates measure or EP measure.
Accordingly, we do not believe that any
part of proposed § 668.603(b) is
inconsistent with the provisions of
subpart G or constitutes a
misapplication of its provisions.
We agree with the commenter who
noted that in taking an action to
terminate the eligibility of a failing
program, the Department is bound by all
of the provisions of subpart G related to
due process—that is, delivery of notice
to the institution with an opportunity to
request a hearing, as well as the
opportunity to submit written materials
to the designated Department official,
and, finally, the institution’s right to
appeal the initial decision of the hearing
officer to the Secretary. Section
668.91(a)(3)(vi) does, as noted by
another commenter, require the hearing
official to terminate the program’s
eligibility unless they conclude that the
Secretary erred in the applicable
calculation. However, we do not agree
with that commenter that this provision
either removes the official’s discretion
to make an eligibility determination
based on the facts and circumstances
before them or violates the institution’s
due process rights by requiring the
Department official to terminate a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
program’s eligibility without the
opportunity for presentation of the case
before a hearing official.
Unlike with a similar action taken as
the result of serious program violations,
termination proceedings to end the
participation of a failing GE program
would be based solely on the regulatory
loss of eligibility prescribed in
§ 668.603. Such loss of eligibility can
only result from failing D/E rates or EP
measures as objectively calculated using
the formulas prescribed in §§ 668.403
and 668.404, respectively. Therefore, a
conclusion by the hearing official that
the Department erred in the applicable
calculation is, appropriately, the only
basis on which that individual may
decline to terminate the program’s
participation. However, within the
context of determining whether errors
were made in calculating the D/E rates
or EP measures, the hearing official is
not constrained when considering the
facts and circumstances before them. It
is also not the case that these rules will
mandate that the Department official
terminate a program’s eligibility without
the opportunity for the institution to
present its case before a hearing official.
Under § 668.86(b)(1)(iii), the
Department official must inform the
institution that termination will not be
effective on the date specified in the
notice if the designated Department
official receives from the institution by
that date a request for a hearing.
Regarding the objections of some
commenters that limiting the basis for
any appeal to a calculation error on the
part of the Department unfairly denies
institutions any opportunity to present
data that are potentially more accurate
than the data on which the Department
based its calculations, we have
addressed the substance of that concern
in the NPRM and we elaborate on due
process concerns elsewhere in this
document. Here we reiterate that,
earnings data notwithstanding, the
information used by the Department to
calculate D/E rates is reported by
institutions and presumed to be
accurate. As discussed above, moreover,
institutions are provided an opportunity
to correct completer lists and to update
or otherwise correct any reported data.
Finally, we believe that the question of
whether to identify programs based on
the six-digit CIP, six-digit OPEID, or
eight-digit OPEID is most appropriately
addressed in the discussion of the
definition of a GE program and not
germane to a discussion of appeals. We
address the substance of that suggestion
elsewhere in this document.
Changes: None.
Comments: Addressing the provision
in proposed § 668.405, allowing an
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70093
institution to update or otherwise
correct any reported data no later than
60 days after the end of an award year,
several commenters expressed
confusion over and requested
clarification from the Department on the
required timeframe being tied to the end
of an award year and suggested that the
60-day period be counted from the date
the institution is provided with a
completer list. An alternative offered by
one commenter would bifurcate the
process, giving institutions 60 days from
the end of the award year to correct any
self-reported data and an additional 60
days to respond to any subsequent
completer list, the assumption being
that the Department’s intent is that any
60-day correction period would begin at
a point where the institution has access
to all data subject to correction.
Additionally, commenters asserted that
any correction opportunity should also
extend to data the Department collects
itself, such as Direct Loan Program loan
debt, and that institutions should also
have the opportunity to identify
students whom the Department failed to
exclude from the completer list,
provided the institution has reliable
evidence that the students should be
excluded.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter who expressed confusion
over the proposed timeframe for
updating or otherwise correcting any
reported data and suggested separating
that process and corrections to the
completer list. As noted by the
commenter, an institution cannot
review the completer list until it is
received, a date which may not coincide
with the end date of the academic year.
Because the composition of completer
lists is based on student enrollment
information reported to NSLDS, we are
not persuaded of the need for a process
whereby an institution would identify
to the Department students it (the
institution) believes should be excluded
from the list. Upon receipt of a
completer list, the institution should
correct any inaccurate enrollment data
reported to NSLDS. Accordingly, we
have revised § 668.405(b)(1)(iii) to allow
the institution 60 days from the date the
Secretary provides the list to make
necessary corrections to underlying
enrollment data in NSLDS.
Subsequently, the Department will
presume that all such data is correct and
proceed with calculating D/E rates
measures and EP measures. In response
to the commenter who asserted that any
correction opportunity should extend to
data the Department collects itself (e.g.,
Direct Loan Program loan debt), we note
that median loan debt used in the D/E
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70094
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
calculation is derived from information
the institution is required to report to
the Department and provision for the
correction of that data already exists in
§ 668.405(a).
Changes: Section 668.405(b)(1)(iii) is
revised to allow the institution to
correct underlying enrollment
information reported to NSLDS about
the students on the completer list no
later than 60 days after the date the
Secretary provides the list to the
institution.
Comments: We received a large
number of comments objecting to the
Department’s decision not to include an
alternate earnings appeal in these rules.
Several of these commenters
characterized the absence of an earnings
appeal as a retraction of assurances
made by the Department in the 2014
Prior Rule to provide an opportunity for
institutions to demonstrate that actual
earnings for a failing program are higher
than those on which D/E rates
calculations were based. These
commenters cited the 2014 Prior Rule
NPRM where the Department, in
addressing what was then proposed
§ 668.406, stated, ‘‘[w]e recognize that
this process must provide an institution
an adequate opportunity to present and
have considered rebuttal evidence of the
earnings data, and the alternate earnings
appeal process provides that
opportunity,’’ and these commentators
characterized the statement as evidence
of a previous commitment to provide
due process with respect to earnings
that has been abrogated. Other
commenters asserted that, inasmuch as
a high potential for the underreporting
of income to the IRS exists in ‘‘tipped’’
occupations and institutions have little
or no control over whether graduates do
report the portion of income derived
from gratuities, it is unfair to predicate
the loss of program eligibility on an
incomplete earnings picture without
providing an appeal based on earnings
surveys such as existed in the 2014
Prior Rule. Still other commenters
suggested the Department’s stipulation
in the preamble to the NPRM that
earnings data obtained from the IRS
contains ‘‘statistical noise’’ constitutes
an admission that data are potentially
flawed, further arguing the need for an
earnings appeal process.
Many of the commenters writing in
opposition to the lack of an earnings
appeal objected to the Department’s
assertion (in the NPRM) that alternate
earnings data for cosmetology schools
filed under the previous earnings appeal
(as permitted in the 2014 Prior Rule)
were ‘‘implausibly high.’’ This
statement was characterized by one
commenter as implying that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
cosmetology schools altered or
manipulated earnings data obtained
from surveys to ensure D/E rates passed
upon appeal. A few commenters
questioned the Department’s position
expressed in the NPRM that it is
unlikely any earnings appeal process
would generate a better estimate of
graduates’ median earnings. One of
those commenters offered that whether
the alternate earnings appeal process
would frequently change the estimate of
median earnings at issue is irrelevant to
whether the Department is providing
institutions with due process as
required by the Constitution. Another
commenter added that the Department’s
conclusions regarding the likely merit of
such appeals are based on a single
round of alternate earnings appeals in
which only institutions offering GE
programs participated. Yet another
commenter rejected the Department’s
assertion that, to date, it has identified
no other data source that could be
expected to yield data of higher quality
and reliability than the data available
from the IRS, inquiring why the
Department asks for flexibility in
seeking a source for earnings data, why
any other source would be considered,
and how the availability of appeals
might be affected should the
Department opt for an alternate source
that is more available but less reliable.
Some commenters questioned the
Department’s lack of confidence in the
results of earnings surveys, in view of
the 2014 regulations then in effect
requiring an attestation from the
institution’s chief operating officer, as
well as an examination-level attestation
engagement report prepared by an
independent public accountant or
independent government auditor that
the survey was conducted in accordance
with NCES. One commenter asked
whether the Department has considered
that perhaps the reported Social
Security Administration (SSA) earnings
data might be the data set that is
suspect. Two more commenters related
the success their respective institutions
had in mounting successful alternate
earnings appeals, with one example
offered where average reported income
was 65.5 percent higher than reported
SSA earnings. Both commenters
expressed confidence that the surveys
were conducted in full compliance with
applicable standards and produced
accurate results. Finally, two
commenters disputed the notion that an
appeal process creates adverse
incentives for programs to encourage
underreporting, inasmuch as
institutions do not instruct students on
how to complete their taxes. These
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
commenters also expressed the opinion
that there would be no benefit in
encouraging students to underreport
their income since graduates’
underreporting of tip and other income
will always harm an institution that is
subject to the GE rule.
These commenters contended that,
despite expressing serious misgivings as
to the veracity of earnings surveys, the
Department presented no evidence of
wrongdoing or overstating of income
and displayed an unwarranted bias
against the appeal process. One
commenter summarized the
Department’s arguments as largely
tracking those that were rejected by the
district court in American Association
of Cosmetology Schools v. DeVos
(AACS).201 Commenters further
criticized the Department’s reference to
the administrative burden resulting
from the appeals structure under the
2014 Prior Rule, opining that easing
burden on the Department is not a
legitimate reason for denying
institutions recourse to an earnings
appeal as an essential part of ensuring
due process.
Various commenters claimed that the
decision of the district court in AACS
constitutes an implied or even express
mandate for the Department to offer an
earnings appeal. Citing the court’s
conclusion regarding arbitrariness in
making rebuttals of reported income
data overly difficult, the commenters
asserted that rather than modifying the
alternate earnings appeal process to
comply with the court’s decision, the
Department has proposed rules that
ignore the court. One commenter added
that the court ordered that the
Department remove barriers to the
appeal process in order to uphold the
legality of the rule and, in doing so,
signaled that it found value in the
appeal process as an alternative means
of measuring earnings data that was
responsive to the problem but was
constructed in a manner that was
infeasible for certain programs to utilize
the appeal.
Several of the commenters argued that
the Department must, out of
consideration for the district court’s
decision, principles of fairness, or both,
restore the alternate earnings appeal
contained in the 2014 Prior Rule (as
modified by the court’s order in AACS),
or conduct a study of reasonable
solutions for addressing the
unreliability of reported earnings
resulting from underreporting of tipped
wages, independent employment tax
treatment affecting net income, racial
and gender wage discrimination, and
201 258
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
F. Supp. 3d 50 (D.D.C. 2017).
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
other factors that may have a bearing on
program graduates. One commenter
offered that, while the district judge in
the AACS case found that the specific
earnings appeal mechanism in the prior
rule was unworkable, it might be
modified to comply with the law. The
commenter suggested that the
Department could use an earnings
appeal that required schools to submit
a statistically significant number of
responders to the appeal cohort as
opposed to requiring a 100-percent
response rate, adding that changes such
as this would allow for schools to have
appropriate due process rights under the
GE Rule.
Discussion: The Department shares
the commitment to using reliable
earnings data for the D/E and EP
metrics, as expressed by many
commenters. But the Department
disagrees that relatively open-ended
earnings appeals are the appropriate and
sensible, let alone legally required,
means of achieving that goal. We reach
that conclusion for several reasons,
many of them recounted in the NPRM.
Among them are the Department’s
experience with earnings appeals after
the 2014 Prior Rule went into effect, and
the particular features of the rules that
we adopt here. With the benefit of
experience, other developments since
2014, and the inclusion in these rules of
various safeguards against significantly
inaccurate or underestimated completer
earnings, we have concluded that
alternate earnings appeals of the kind
the commenters suggested would be
unreasonable if not arbitrary. We have
likewise concluded that those appeals
are not mandated by the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
We disagree, first of all, with
suggestions that the Department’s 2014
Prior Rule locked in a position on
appeals today. We repeat that agencies
may lawfully alter positions based on
nonarbitrary grounds, which we
supplied in the NPRM and further
address in this document. Furthermore,
we observe that the commenters who
referenced the preamble to the 2014
Prior Rule NPRM do not appear to
support the rules on earnings appeals
that were proposed and adopted in
2014. Those provisions limited alternate
earnings appeals to complaints that
were supported by a State-sponsored
earnings database or an earnings survey
conducted in accordance with certain
requirements established by NCES.202
Based on information that was available
to the Department in 2014, and to
adequately assure the reliability of
202 Formerly 34 CFR 668.406(b) through (d)
(rescinded).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
results and fairness to all concerned, the
Department favored a controlled form of
alternate earnings appeals. Some
commenters refer us back to 2014 but
without endorsing the rules that were
adopted then, and apparently without
accepting that the Department may
consider developments since then. We
are not persuaded by those positions.
In any event, the reasons for alternate
earnings appeals do not hold as they did
in 2014. We have explained the
Department’s position in this document
and in the NPRM. Now-familiar
arguments about unreported income
have become less persuasive based on
further review and a number of
considerations including: current
Federal requirements for the accurate
reporting of income and increased use
of electronic transactions, which makes
underreporting income more difficult;
the fact that IRS income data are used
without adjustment for determining
student and family incomes for
purposes of establishing student title IV,
HEA eligibility, and determining loan
payments under income-driven
repayment plans; the relatively low
quality of past data submitted by
institutions in alternate earnings
appeals, including submissions after
litigation over the 2014 Prior Rule, along
with the problems associated with
processing those appeals; and new
research on unreported income. We
reiterate as well that we designed the
metrics to be commonsense and modest
standards of enhanced earnings and
affordable debt, and that a GE program
will have to fail the D/E or EP metric
multiple times before the program is
ineligible to participate in the title IV,
HEA programs. Therefore, GE programs
that are ineligible based on their
repeated failure to meet the metrics will
not be on the margin in a substantive
sense, but instead will be demonstrably
unable to satisfy modest expectations
with a built-in margin for error.
Moreover, compared to the 2014 Prior
Rule, these rules allow additional time
for program completers to establish
earnings—effectively increasing
program-level calculated earnings far
beyond any estimated effects of
statistical noise in privacy-protected
data, and providing further assurance
that programs will not inadvertently fail
the D/E rates measure or the EP
measure. As a result of the Department’s
thorough review and in light of the
particular features of these rules, we
conclude that it is neither necessary nor
appropriate to include a similar
alternate earnings appeal process. We
respect the objections offered by
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70095
commenters, but we are not persuaded
to alter this position.
Regarding the argument made by
some commenters that it would be
unfair to determine program eligibility
unless institutions may submit earnings
surveys, again we refer to preamble
language from the 2023 NPRM. There
we explained that, to date, the
Department has identified no other
earnings data source that could be
expected to yield higher quality and
reliability than the data available to the
Department from the IRS. We believe
that alternative sources of earnings data
such as graduate earnings surveys
would be more prone to issues such as
low or selective (i.e., only higher earners
are sampled, or are differentially likely
to respond) response rates and
inaccurate reporting, could more easily
be manipulated to mask poor program
outcomes, and would impose significant
administrative burden on institutions,
not only the Department. We add here
that, in adopting these rules, the
Department need not quantify the
prevalence of self-interested or bad-faith
earnings estimates. Inaccurate and
unreliable earnings information in
appeals is problematic whatever the
explanations for its low quality.
Furthermore, we lack a reasonable basis
to conclude that subsets of institutions
are likely to produce especially reliable
or unreliable surveys on earnings. We,
therefore, disagree with the commenter
who suggested the Department’s past
experience with earnings appeals is
irrelevant to evaluating rules that cover
a different set of institutions compared
to the 2014 Prior Rule. As to the
influence of institutions on the degree of
compliance exercised by their graduates
with IRS reporting rules, that too is
difficult to quantify with precision. But
we offer our continued and logical belief
that the potential influence of
institutions on the ethical and lawful
behavior of the students they educate is
not insignificant. Regardless, we repeat
that we do not believe that taxpayersupported educational programs should
effectively receive credit for earnings
that their graduates fail to report.
Moreover, we have thoroughly
considered the issue of statistical noise
in IRS earnings data. As explained in
the NPRM, we understand that the IRS
would use a privacy-protective
algorithm to add a small amount of
statistical noise to its estimates before
providing median earnings information
to the Department. The Department
recognizes this creates a small risk of
inaccurate determinations, in both
directions, including a very small
likelihood that a failing program could
have passed if its unadjusted median
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70096
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
earnings data were used in calculating
either D/E rates or the earnings
premium. Using data on the distribution
of noise in the IRS earnings figures used
in the College Scorecard, however, we
have estimated that the probability that
a program could be erroneously
declared ineligible (that is, fail in 2 of
3 years using adjusted data when
unadjusted data would result in failure
for 0 years or 1 year) is itself very
small—less than 1 percent.
Assuming that such statistical noise
would be introduced, the Department
plans to counteract this already small
risk of improper classification in several
ways. First, we include a minimum nsize threshold as discussed under
§ 668.403 to avoid providing median
earnings information for smaller
cohorts, where statistical noise would
have a greater impact on the earnings
measure. The n-size threshold will
effectively cap the influence of the noise
on D/E and EP results. In addition, a
program is not ineligible under the GE
program accountability rules until that
GE program fails the accountability
measures multiple times. Furthermore,
the rules will establish an earnings
calculation methodology that is more
generous to title IV, HEA supported
programs than what the Department
adopted in the 2014 Prior Rule for GE
programs. The rules will measure the
earnings of program completers
approximately one year later (relative to
when they complete their credential)
than under the 2014 Prior Rule. This
will yield substantially higher measured
program earnings than under the
Department’s previous methodology—
on the order of $4,000 (about 20
percent) higher for GE programs with
earnings between $20,000 and $30,000,
which are the programs most at risk for
failing the earnings premium threshold.
This will be more generous to programs
under both the EP and D/E metrics
because the higher measured program
earnings will be used in both
calculations. The increase in earnings
from this later measurement of income
will provide a buffer more than
sufficient to counter possible error
introduced by statistical noise added by
the IRS. Together, these features of the
rules safeguard against artificially low
earnings results, and they do not suggest
the need for further measures such as an
earnings appeal process that would rely
on survey earnings far less reliable than
those provided by the IRS.
Although the Department currently
prefers to rely on IRS earnings data, the
rules also will allow the Department to
obtain earnings data from another
Federal agency if unforeseen
circumstances arise. That provision of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
the rules will give the Department
flexibility to work with another Federal
agency to secure data of adequate
quality and in a form that adequately
protects the privacy of individual
graduates. Despite suggestions by one
commenter, the flexibility to use other
data is no indication that the
Department will use inferior data that
are insufficiently accurate and reliable
for purposes of these rules. We have
confidence in the accuracy and
reliability of all Federal agency sources
under consideration. In any case, the
Department’s NPRM informed the
public about the kind of data needed for
the rules, as well as the sources from
which those data might be drawn.
In response to those commenters who
viewed as pejorative the Department’s
assertion that alternate earnings data for
cosmetology schools filed under the
2014 Prior Rule were implausibly high,
we intended no offense. This statement
does not seek to imply that cosmetology
schools altered or manipulated earnings
data obtained from surveys to inflate D/
E rates as to pass upon appeal. Rather,
we sought to convey our misgivings
over what appeared to have been an
excessive amount of earnings reported
by survey respondents. This may have
resulted from a number of factors that
are difficult to control when using such
surveys. Those challenges in producing
accurate and reliable survey results on
completer earnings are not special to
cosmetology schools.
Moreover, we disagree with some
commenters’ suggestions that
infrequency of errors under the rules
and administrative burdens from the
alternatives that the commenters prefer
are irrelevant to the Due Process Clause.
Those assertions are incorrect. To the
extent that constitutionally protected
interests are even implicated when
institutions seek to benefit from
government support, we reiterate that
due process remains a flexible concept
that accounts for considerations that
include a relatively low probability of
significant error and the Government’s
interest in reducing fiscal and
administrative burdens.203 We likewise
disagree that the Department’s
experience with alternate earnings
appeals is somehow irrelevant or
inadequate to provide support for these
rules. Those appeals were received and
analyzed over an extended period of
time during which the Department
compiled more than sufficient data to
show that the process contained serious
flaws and failed to yield adequately
reliable earnings data. The Department
203 We further address due process in an above
discussion of ‘‘Challenges, Hearings, and Appeals.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
has no evidence to suggest that
subsequent rounds of earnings appeals
would have resolved the Department’s
misgivings about the accuracy and
reliability of earnings data obtained
through the use of earnings surveys, or
about the various costs to all concerned
in operating that process.
We also disagree with the other
arguments that commenters raised for
creating an earnings appeal in these
rules. The 2014 Prior Rule did allow for
institution-sponsored surveys that met
National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES) standards. However, adherence
to NCES standards in this context, even
when confirmed by an examinationlevel attestation engagement report
prepared by an independent auditor,
does not mitigate the potential for
misreporting of earnings by program
graduates participating in the earnings
survey. There are inherent biases for
survey respondents to inflate their
earnings and little incentive for
institutions to encourage accurate
survey responses. Additionally, the
amounts reported on such instruments
cannot be substantiated in any other
way than to accept at face value the
information supplied by a survey
respondent. The Department’s
reservations about the use of earnings
data surveys are already addressed
above and discussed at greater length in
the 2023 NPRM. As for whether the SSA
earnings data used under the 2014 Prior
Rule were ‘‘suspect,’’ we are aware of no
evidence to suggest that was the case.
We do not imply that the commenters
who related their own success in
alternate earnings appeals under the
2014 Prior Rule were noncompliant
with NCES standards. Again, however,
the degree to which any earnings survey
was conducted in accordance with those
standards is not responsive to the
Department’s reservations, given
experience and new evidence, about the
use of earnings data obtained in that
way for calculating D/E rates and the EP
metric.
In response to the commenters who
maintained that institutions do not
instruct students on how to complete
their taxes, we have not suggested that
institutions regularly offer students tax
advice. In addition, we have concluded
that the available evidence, taken as a
whole, indicates that underreporting is
modest in size for graduates of GE
programs and other programs that are
eligible to participate in the title IV,
HEA programs. We do, however, believe
that adding an earnings appeal process
that is aimed at capturing unreported
income could encourage a culture of
underreporting. The practical concern is
that a significant fraction of tax-
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
supported programs may produce
completers who do not report
substantially all of their income to the
Government at the front end, but that,
at the back end, those programs will
remain eligible for title IV, HEA support
through institution-sponsored earnings
surveys in which responses are costless
to program completers. And in response
to the commenters who asserted that
there is no direct and immediate benefit
that accrues to institutions when
students underreport their income, the
extent to which such practices will
affect institutions through GE program
accountability metrics would certainly
be affected by earnings appeals that
allow institutions to pitch estimates of
income that has not been reported to the
IRS as required by law. Finally,
regarding evidence of wrongdoing or
overstating of income intentionally by
institutions, we repeat that, in adopting
these rules, the Department need not
quantify the prevalence of selfinterested or bad-faith earnings
estimates. Inaccurate and unreliable
earnings information in appeals is
problematic whatever the explanations
for its low quality. With respect to
institution-sponsored surveys, earnings
estimates are entirely reflective of
whatever figures respondents choose to
report, unverifiable, and subject to
several biases for which there are not
adequate controls. Self-reported
earnings on surveys are not an
appropriate substitute for substantiated
earnings reported to the IRS or another
Federal agency with earnings data of
comparable quality. Indeed, most
research into the extent of misreporting
of incomes in surveys take
administrative data, including that
provided to the IRS or SSA using the
same information reports (W2 forms and
schedule SE) we rely on to measure
program graduates’ earnings, as the
‘‘ground truth’’ with which to compare
survey reported earnings.204
The Department disagrees with the
commenters who argued that the
decision of the district court in
American Association of Cosmetology
Schools v. DeVos,205 which addressed
the 2014 Prior Rule, mandates that the
Department offer an alternate earnings
appeal in this final rule. There the
district court rejected in part and
accepted in part certain arbitrariness
challenges to the 2014 Prior Rule. The
court held that the Department had
adequately explained why SSA earnings
204 See for example, Bollinger, Hirsch, Hokayem
& Ziliak (2019). Trouble in the Tails? What We
Know about Earnings Nonresponse Thirty Years
after Lillard, Smith, and Welch. Journal of Political
Economy, 127(5).
205 258 F. Supp. 3d 50 (D.D.C. 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
data were used and without an
adjustment factor for unreported
income,206 but the court also held that
the Department had not justified certain
limits on alternate earnings appeals. The
court referred to evidence of unreported
income in the 2014 rulemaking
proceedings,207 and the court examined
the Department’s reasoning, focusing on
then-current law regarding income
reporting and on the earnings appeals in
the 2014 Rule. In reviewing the prior
rule’s limits on those appeals, the court
stated that the Department had not
explained its assumptions.208 The court
ultimately ordered that AACS member
schools be allowed to pursue earnings
appeals without meeting the numerical
survey requirements in the rule.209 The
court did observe that the notice-andcomment process failed to identify
better data or a better methodology for
calculating earnings for program
completers, but, in fashioning a remedy,
the court believed that each school
should be allowed to offer something
better, if it existed, during an appeal.210
The Department followed the district
court’s opinion when the 2014 Prior
Rule was in effect. The opportunity to
submit a Notice of Intent to Appeal was
re-opened and institutions were
permitted to submit alternate earnings
206 See id. at 75–76. We note here our
disagreement with commentators’
recommendations that the Department study the
issue of unreported earnings even further, given our
examination of the issue during this negotiated
rulemaking process and the available research. See
generally FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 141 S.
Ct. 1150, 1160 (2021) (‘‘In the absence of additional
data from commenters, the FCC made a reasonable
predictive judgment based on the evidence it
had.’’); Am. Hosp. Ass’n v. Azar, 983 F.3d 528, 539
(D.C. Cir. 2020) (‘‘The Secretary . . . is not limited
to relying only on definitive evidence. . . .’’). We
observe in this regard that the AACS district court
concluded that the Department was not responsible
for collecting earnings data on individual programs,
see 258 F. Supp. 3d at 75 n.8, and the court
indicated that the Department had no obligation to
conduct independent studies under the applicable
standard for use of data, see id. (quoting Sw. Ctr.
for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 215 F.3d 58, 60
(D.C. Cir. 2000)). See also Prometheus Radio, 141
S. Ct. at 1160 (‘‘The [Administrative Procedure Act]
imposes no general obligation on agencies to
conduct or commission their own empirical or
statistical studies.’’); District Hosp. Partners, L.P. v.
Burwell, 786 F.3d 46, 56, 61 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
(addressing standards for agency data use, and
indicating that a dataset on which an agency relies
need not be perfect).
207 Above in ‘‘Tipped Income,’’ we address such
evidence of unreported earnings along with more
recent findings.
208 See 258 F. Supp. 3d at 74 (discussing the prior
rule’s numerical response-rate requirements for
earnings data from State-sponsored data systems
and from institution-sponsored surveys).
209 See id. at 76–77 (severing part of the 2014
appeals rule from the remainder of the 2014 Prior
Rule, and stating that the Department ‘‘will be able
to decide, on a case-by-case basis, what modicum
of evidence is enough’’).
210 See id. at 63.
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70097
appeals for programs with overall
‘‘zone’’ or fail ratings regardless of
whether the 50 percent minimum
response rate or 30-response minimum
were met, with the Department agreeing
to review the earnings appeals on a
case-by-case basis. Indeed, the
Department allowed these case-by-case
earnings appeals for all institutions, not
only AACS members. And we have
taken care to examine the court’s
opinion again during this rulemaking.
We understand the concerns expressed
in the opinion, as well as the hope for
a workable even if open-ended earnings
appeals process, given the record
evidence that was available and the
reasoning in the 2014 rulemaking
proceedings. We appreciate as well that
the court expressed concern for
administrability.211 Of course, the
district court’s evaluation of the
reasoning in the 2014 Prior Rule does
not bind the Department in a
subsequent rulemaking that considers
new and different information, relies on
a different set of reasons, and produces
different final rules. Nonetheless, the
Department has been mindful of the
district court’s review of the 2014 Prior
Rule.
In this document and the
accompanying NPRM, we have
explained at length our rationale for
relying on a Federal agency with
earnings data as a source of reliable,
verifiable, and accurate earnings
information to use in the calculation of
debt-to-earnings rates and the earnings
premium. We have similarly explained
the Department’s decision not to
include an alternate earnings appeal in
this final rule. The Department’s
position here is not based on
unexplained assumptions about tax law
compliance or the value of certain
survey response rates. Instead our
conclusions are based on considerations
such as new data on unreported income
that indicate its modest size for the
program graduates who are relevant to
this rule; new laws on reported income
and the increased use of electronic
payments expected to further reduce
underreporting; a longer earnings period
in these rules that safeguards against
programs failing the D/E or EP metrics
in ways that concern various
commenters; the use of reported income
in other Department operations as well
as the problematic incentives arising
from crediting programs with
unreported income; and the
211 See id. at 73 (‘‘[T]he [Department] has
discretion to sacrifice some measure of fit for the
sake of administrability.’’); id. at 74 (‘‘Nor did the
commenters propose an alternative calculus to
balance fit and administrability.’’).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70098
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Department’s hard-earned experience in
conducting open-ended appeals and
processing the surveys and other
information that was submitted. The
Department has concluded that AACS’s
previous estimates of up to 60 percent
unreported income in that case were far
too high to be plausible, are even less
indicative of actual earnings under
current circumstances, and are not a
reasonable basis for adding earnings
appeals now.212 That is not the quality
of evidence on which the Department
could rationally and fairly supersede
earnings data from IRS or another
Federal agency, nor should programs
receive credit for such evidence of
unreported earnings. Moreover, earnings
appeals under the 2014 Rule were not
only difficult to administer and
burdensome for all involved but also,
and crucially, they yielded low-value
information overall. The district court in
AACS could not have been aware of
these developments when it evaluated
the 2014 Prior Rule, and the
Department’s decision today obviously
is no indication of disregard for the
court. To the contrary, the Department’s
decisions in this final rule are
importantly based on subsequent
developments and insight gained from
following the district court’s judgment.
Changes: None.
Program Application Requirements
Comments: One commenter voiced
concern about certain portions of the
requirements under § 600.21(a)(11) to
update application information for GE
programs. They described the difficulty
of knowing when a change is considered
to occur for the 10-day requirement to
begin, citing lengthy approval processes
sometimes involving a State and
accrediting agency in addition to
institutional academic governance
structures. They also voiced concern at
whether even potentially minor
changes, such as a one-credit change in
program length, or a minor change in
words in a program name, would trigger
reporting requirements. They
recommended extending the reporting
period to 30 or 60 days, and that we
clarify that we require updates only for
substantive items relative to program
eligibility and misrepresentation, not to
minor clerical changes not fundamental
to eligibility.
Discussion: The 10-day period for
reporting changes is consistent with the
10-day period for changes to GE
programs institutions are currently
required to report, as well as other
eligibility changes (e.g., change in
212 For additional detail, see the discussion above
in ‘‘Tipped Income.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
institutional officials, change of address,
etc.), and the Department believes that
it is an appropriate reporting period.
Changes to a GE program name were
already reportable changes under
§ 600.21(a)(11)(v).
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter sought to
draw our attention to an inconsistency
between the communicated intent in the
preambulatory section to add a
conforming change to acknowledge
§ 668.603 limitations on adding new
programs and re-establishing programs
after a loss in eligibility versus the
language in proposed § 600.10(c)(1)(v),
which would have required institutions
to obtain Department approval before
establishing or re-establishing any of
these programs. They suggested
repositioning that provision outside of
§ 600.10(c)(1) to correctly reflect the
intention of a reporting requirement and
not an approval requirement.
Discussion: The Department thanks
the commenter for their observation. We
agree that we are seeking to maintain
the requirement to report new GE
programs or changes to existing GE
programs, and to add a requirement to
report to the Department if a GE
program is being established or reestablished that would once have been
ineligible to do so under § 668.403.
Changes: The provision was
repositioned outside of § 600.10(c)(1),
from § 600.10(c)(1)(v) to § 600.10(c)(3),
with a slight rewording for additional
clarity.
Comments: One commenter observed
that while proposed § 668.604(c)(2)
would prevent institutions from adding
any new GE programs to their list of
eligible programs if they are
substantially similar to a failing program
that became ineligible or was
voluntarily discontinued, and while
language in the preamble to the 2023
NPRM indicated an intent to use the
same four-digit CIP prefix as under the
2014 rule, the rule as proposed did not
contain a definition for ‘‘substantially
similar.’’
Discussion: The Department agrees
with the commenter and thanks them
for bringing this to our attention. We
will adopt a similar definition of
‘‘substantially similar program’’ using
the four-digit CIP prefix as was used in
the 2014 Prior Rule.
We are establishing at § 668.2 that two
programs are substantially similar to
one another if they share the same fourdigit CIP code. Institutions may not
establish a new GE program that shares
the same four-digit CIP code as a
program that became ineligible or was
voluntarily discontinued when it was
failing within the last three years. An
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
institution may establish a new GE
program with a different four-digit CIP
code that is not substantially similar to
an ineligible or discontinued GE
program and provide an explanation of
how the new program is different when
it submits the certification for the new
program. We presume based on that
submission that the new program is not
substantially similar to the ineligible or
discontinued program, but the
information may be reviewed on a caseby-case basis so a new program is not
substantially similar to the other
program.
We believe that this revision strikes
an appropriate balance between
preventing institutions from closing and
restarting a poorly performing program
to avoid accountability and ensuring
that institutions are not prevented from
establishing different programs to
provide training in fields where there is
demand. We believe that it is
appropriate to require an institution that
is establishing a new program to provide
a certification under § 668.604 that
includes an explanation of how the new
GE program is not substantially similar
to each program offered by the
institution that, in the prior three years,
became ineligible under the regulations’
accountability provisions or was
voluntarily discontinued by the
institution when the program was
failing the D/E rates or EP measure. In
the first instance, the institution will
possess information on the programs in
question, and the rule still will provide
a safeguard in the form of an
opportunity for the Department to
evaluate such submissions when
appropriate.
Changes: We have added a definition
of ‘‘substantially similar program’’
under § 668.2.
Miscellaneous
Comments: One commenter
recommended that the Department
monitor the quality of education, or
oversee curriculum, as the student
progresses through their academic
program, not just by using metrics
established at the end of a program.
Discussion: The Department’s
authority in postsecondary education
matters is limited to issues relating to
Federal student aid, the use of Federal
funds, and the specific programs
administered by the Department.
Further, under section 103 of the
Department of Education Organization
Act of 1979, the Department is generally
prohibited from exercising any
direction, supervision, or control over
the curriculum, program of instruction,
administration, or personnel of an
educational institution, school, school
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
system, or accrediting agency or
association.213 Consequently, we do not
have the authority—and are expressly
prohibited from regulating—
postsecondary institutions’ curriculum.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
suggested ways to properly identify GE
programs and determine the most
appropriate method and period to
measure earnings. Suggested approaches
included institutions self-certifying the
existence of adequate mechanisms
already in place, provided they point to
a specific State legal requirement or
process that justifies the extended time
period, or the Department could
periodically accept submissions from
reliable authorities (e.g., State regulatory
bodies, accreditors or occupational
industry groups) regarding covered
occupations, and the Department could
periodically publish resulting
determinations in the Federal Register.
Discussion: We appreciate these
suggestions. The methods for
identifying GE programs and reporting
earnings data included in § 668.405
allow for consistent calculations and
data across states, programs, and
institutions. We believe it is critical to
provide students and families access to
information that is comparable and
consistently calculated.
Changes: None.
Other Accommodations and Special
Circumstances
Comments: Many commenters argued
that the Department must consider
economic factors such as recessions and
the COVID–19 pandemic. These
commenters stressed that these events
led, and could again lead in the future,
to widespread unemployment and
depressed earnings. These commenters
further stated that it would
unreasonably penalize institutions to
use earnings data from periods of time
that many graduates, particularly in the
health and beauty industry, were
prohibited from or otherwise unable to
work.
Discussion: We believe the need for
the financial value transparency and GE
program accountability frameworks is
too urgent to postpone any of their
primary components to such an extent.
The first official rates published under
these regulations will, for most
programs, be based on students who
completed a program in award years
2018 and 2019, measuring their earnings
outcomes in 2021 and 2022. The impact
of the COVID–19 pandemic was most
pronounced in 2020, and the labor
market had largely recovered by 2022,
213 20
U.S.C. 3403(b).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
with strong earnings growth particularly
among lower income workers. While the
unemployment rate for workers with
some college or an associate degree
overall was 6.6 percent in July of 2021,
up from its rate in January of 2019 of 3.9
percent, this 2.7 percentage point
difference in employment will have
very little impact on median earnings—
this is an additional benefit of using the
median. And overall earnings growth
among employed workers was very
strong. By July of 2022, the
unemployment rate had improved to 3.5
percent—tied for as low as it had ever
been in the past 50 years.214 On balance,
then, we do not expect the median
earnings of most program graduates to
have been distorted by the pandemic in
the relevant years such that discarding
the metrics based on these years is
necessary.
This assessment is bolstered by
analysis of College Scorecard data. The
Department does not have earnings
measures for programs yet for 2021. But
comparing College Scorecard earnings
measures based on the year 2020—as
noted above, by a large margin the year
with the greatest elevation in
unemployment due to the pandemic—
suggests the pandemic may not have
had a dramatic impact on measured
earnings. Comparing 3-years earnings
estimates based on earnings measured
in 2018–2019 to those based on 2019–
2020 (in real dollars), shows that the
pandemic did not lead to systematically
lower measured median earnings for all
or even most programs. The middle 50
percent of programs ranged from a
decline in earnings of 4.2 percent to an
increase in earnings of 4.0 percent, with
the median program experiencing no
change in earnings across the two
periods. Since the labor market had
recovered considerably by 2021, we do
not anticipate program earnings data
based on earnings in 2021 and 2022 to
be overly influenced by the pandemic
for most programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
stated that various State licensing
boards were closed, behind, or
backlogged by one to two years during
the COVID–19 pandemic. These delays
in State licensure substantially hindered
job placements and earnings for
graduates according to these
commenters, who stated that many new
graduates were not able to move forward
and earn money until 2023.
214 The official monthly civilian unemployment
rate data can be accessed here: https://www.bls.gov/
charts/employment-situation/civilianunemployment-rate.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70099
Discussion: The Department
recognizes that the COVID–19 pandemic
and national emergency may have
impacted data from some years included
in the initial reporting period. But as
noted above, available data suggest
these impacts may be limited in scope
even in 2020, the year when
employment effects of the pandemic
were most pronounced. Postponing
sanctions until such time as no earnings
data through 2022 is included in the D/
E rate or EP calculations would delay
the benefits of the rule until at least the
2026–2027 award year. To repeat, we
believe the need for the transparency
and accountability measures is too
urgent to postpone any of the primary
components to such an extent.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked for
an exception in the final rule for
barbering and cosmetology schools
based on the unique circumstances of
those schools. Specifically, the
commenter suggested that the final rule
should provide for (1) a proxy amount
to account for unreported earnings that
would be added to Federal agency
earnings data for barbering/cosmetology
programs; (2) an alternate earnings
appeal as in the 2014 GE Rule; and (3)
an exemption for institutions with
revenues of $10 million or below.
Discussion: As stated above, we do
not believe it is appropriate to make an
exception for these institutions because
we believe the students at these
institutions are just as deserving of
protection from accumulating
unaffordable debt or experiencing no
earnings gains from GE programs. We
discuss the issues of tipped income and
earnings appeals elsewhere in this final
rule. Moreover, we do not believe there
is a reasoned basis for an exception
based upon revenue amounts, nor why
such an exception should be only
applied to cosmetology schools.
Commenters did not supply any
persuasive bases for those suggested
carveouts. We believe the GE program
accountability framework should be
applied to the programs that are covered
by the GE provisions of the HEA, which
include cosmetology programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Another commenter
requested that we not make exceptions
to the GE rules for some institutions,
and we do not allow for ‘‘carve outs.’’
The commenter stated that allowing
institutions to offer low earnings and
low ROI programs without a program
information website or student
acknowledgments is harmful to
prospective students seeking to attend
these programs and cannot be justified.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70100
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s support.
Changes: None.
Financial Value Transparency and
Gainful Employment (GE)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and
14094
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) must determine whether this
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of
the Executive order and subject to
review by OMB. Section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Order 14094, defines a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an
action likely to result in a rule that
may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $200 million or more
(adjusted every 3 years by the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) for changes in gross domestic
product), or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, territorial, or
Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
for which centralized review would
meaningfully further the President’s
priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order, as specifically
authorized in a timely manner by the
Administrator of OIRA in each case.
The Department estimates the
quantified annualized economic and net
budget impacts to be in excess of $200
million. Annualized transfers between
institutions and the Federal Government
through borrowers are estimated to be
$1.2 billion at a 7 percent discount rate
and $1.3 billion at a 3 percent discount
rate in reduced Pell grants and loan
volume. This analysis also estimates
additional annualized transfers of $747
million (at a 3 percent discount rate;
$732 million at 7 percent discount rate)
among institutions as students shift
programs and estimated annualized
paperwork and compliance burden of
$105.6 million (at a 3 percent discount
rate; $109.5 million at a 7 percent
discount rate) are also detailed in this
analysis. Therefore, this final action is
subject to review by OMB under section
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (as
amended by Executive Order 14094).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
designated this rule as covered by 5
U.S.C. 804(2). Notwithstanding this
determination, based on our assessment
of the potential costs and benefits
(quantitative and qualitative), we have
determined that the benefits of this
regulatory action will justify the costs.
We have also reviewed these
regulations under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
on a reasoned determination that their
benefits justify their costs (recognizing
that some benefits and costs are difficult
to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
and to the extent practicable—the costs
of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
We are issuing these final regulations
to address inadequate protections for
students and taxpayers in the current
regulations and to implement recent
changes to the HEA. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we
selected those approaches that
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
maximize net benefits. Based on the
analysis that follows, the Department
believes that these regulations are
consistent with the principles in
Executive Order 13563.
We have also determined that this
regulatory action would not unduly
interfere with State, local, territorial,
and Tribal governments in the exercise
of their governmental functions.
As required by OMB Circular A–4, we
compare these final regulations to the
current regulations. In this regulatory
impact analysis, we discuss the need for
regulatory action, potential costs and
benefits, net budget impacts, and the
regulatory alternatives we considered.
1. Covered Rule Designation
Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
et seq.), the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs designated that this
rule is covered under 5 U.S.C. 804(2)
and (3).
2. Need for Regulatory Action
Summary
The title IV, HEA student financial
assistance programs are a significant
annual expenditure by the Federal
Government. When used well, Federal
student aid for postsecondary education
can help boost student outcomes and
economic mobility. But the Department
is concerned that there are too many
instances in which the financial returns
of programs leave students with debt
they cannot afford or with earnings that
leave students no better off than
similarly aged students who never
pursued a postsecondary education.
The final regulations will provide
stronger protections for current and
prospective students of programs that
typically leave graduates with high debt
burdens or low earnings. Under a
program-level transparency and
accountability framework, the
Department will assess a program’s debt
and earnings outcomes based on debtto-earnings (D/E) and earnings premium
(EP) metrics. These regulations will
require institutions to provide current
and prospective students with a link to
a Department website providing the
debt and earnings outcomes of all
programs. Students considering
enrolling in all eligible programs, other
than undergraduate degree programs,
that have failed D/E metrics must
acknowledge they have viewed the
information prior to entering into an
enrollment agreement with an
institution. Students enrolled or
considering enrollment in GE programs
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70101
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
failing either the EP or D/E measures
will receive warnings that must be
acknowledged prior to receiving title IV,
HEA funds. Finally, GE programs that
consistently fail to meet the
performance metrics will become
ineligible for title IV, HEA funds.
The regulations will, therefore,
increase transparency and strengthen
accountability for postsecondary
institutions and programs in several
critical ways. All institutions will be
required to provide students a link to
access information about debt and
earnings outcomes. Non-GE certificate
and graduate programs not meeting the
D/E standards will be required to have
students acknowledge viewing this
information before entering enrollment
agreements, and career training
programs failing either the D/E or EP
metrics will need to warn students
about the possibility that they would
lose eligibility for Federal aid. Some
institutions will have to improve their
offerings or lose access to Federal aid.
As a result, students and taxpayers will
have greater assurances that their money
is spent at institutions that deliver value
and merit Federal support.
The Financial Value Transparency
and GE eligibility provisions in subparts
Q and S of the final regulations are
intended to address the problem that
many programs are not delivering
sufficient financial value to students
and taxpayers, and students and
families often lack the information on
the financial consequences of attending
different programs needed to make
informed decisions about where to
attend. These issues are especially
prevalent among programs that, as a
condition of eligibility for title IV, HEA
program funds, are required by statute
to provide training that prepares
students for gainful employment in a
recognized occupation. Currently, many
of these programs leave the typical
graduate with unaffordable levels of
loan debt in relation to their income,
earnings that are no greater than what
they would reasonably expect to receive
if they had not attended the program, or
both.
Through this regulatory action, the
Department establishes: (1) A Financial
Value Transparency framework that will
increase the quality, availability, and
salience of information about the
outcomes of students enrolled in all title
IV, HEA programs and (2) an
accountability framework for GE
programs that will define what it means
to prepare students for gainful
employment in a recognized occupation
by establishing standards by which the
Department would evaluate whether a
GE program remains eligible for title IV,
HEA program funds. As noted in the
preamble to this regulation, there are
different statutory grounds for the
transparency and accountability
frameworks.
The transparency framework (subpart
Q and § 668.43) will establish reporting
and program information website
requirements that will increase the
transparency of student outcomes for all
programs. This will provide the most
accurate and comparable information
possible to students, prospective
students, and their families to help them
make better informed decisions about
where to invest their time and money in
pursuit of a postsecondary degree or
credential. Institutions will be required
to provide information about program
characteristics, outcomes, and costs and
the Department will assess a program’s
debt and earnings outcomes based on
debt-to-earnings and earnings premium
metrics, using information reported by
institutions and information otherwise
obtained by the Department. The final
rule seeks to provide salient information
to students by requiring that institutions
provide current and prospective
students with a link to view cost, debt,
and earnings outcomes of their chosen
program on the Department’s website.
For non-GE programs (excepting
undergraduate degree programs where
students commonly do not apply to a
particular program) failing the debt-toearnings metrics, the Department will
require an acknowledgment that the
enrolled or prospective student has
viewed the information. Further, the
website will provide the public,
taxpayers, and the Government with
relevant information to help understand
the outcomes of these programs
receiving Federal investment.
Finally, the transparency framework
will provide institutions with
meaningful information that they can
use to improve the outcomes for
students and guide their decisions about
program offerings.
The accountability framework
(subpart S) defines what it means to
prepare students for gainful
employment by establishing standards
that assess whether typical students
leave programs with reasonable debt
burdens and earn more than the typical
worker who completed no more
education than a high school diploma or
equivalent. GE programs that repeatedly
fail to meet these criteria will lose
eligibility to participate in title IV, HEA
student aid programs.
Overview of Postsecondary Programs
Supported by Title IV of the HEA
Under subpart Q, we will, among
other things, assess debt and earnings
outcomes for students in all programs
participating in title IV, HEA programs,
including both GE programs and eligible
non-GE programs. Under subpart S, we
will, among other things, establish title
IV, HEA eligibility requirements for GE
programs. In assessing the need for
these regulatory actions, the Department
analyzed program performance. The
Department’s analysis of program
performance is based on data assembled
for all title IV, HEA postsecondary
programs operating as of March 2022
that also had completions reported in
the 2015–16 and 2016–17 award years
(AY). This data, referred to as the ‘‘2022
Program Performance Data (2022 PPD),’’
is described in detail in the ‘‘Data Used
in this RIA’’ section below, though we
draw on it in this section to describe
outcome differences across programs.
Table 2.1 reports the number of
programs and average title IV, HEA
enrollment for all institutions in our
data for AY 2016 and 2017. Throughout
this RIA, we provide analysis separately
for programs that will be affected only
by subpart Q and those that will
additionally be affected by subpart S
(GE programs).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
TABLE 2.1—COMBINED NUMBER OF TITLE IV ELIGIBLE PROGRAMS AND TITLE IV ENROLLMENT BY CONTROL AND
CREDENTIAL LEVEL COMBINING GE AND NON-GE
Number of
Programs
Public:
UG Certificates .................................................................................................................................................
Associate ..........................................................................................................................................................
Bachelor’s .........................................................................................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
18,971
27,312
24,338
872
Enrollees
869,600
5,496,800
5,800,700
12,600
70102
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.1—COMBINED NUMBER OF TITLE IV ELIGIBLE PROGRAMS AND TITLE IV ENROLLMENT BY CONTROL AND
CREDENTIAL LEVEL COMBINING GE AND NON-GE—Continued
Number of
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Programs
Enrollees
Master’s ............................................................................................................................................................
Doctoral ............................................................................................................................................................
Professional ......................................................................................................................................................
Grad Certs ........................................................................................................................................................
14,582
5,724
568
1,939
760,500
145,200
127,500
41,900
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
94,306
13,254,700
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates .................................................................................................................................................
Associate ..........................................................................................................................................................
Bachelor’s .........................................................................................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...................................................................................................................................................
Master’s ............................................................................................................................................................
Doctoral ............................................................................................................................................................
Professional ......................................................................................................................................................
Grad Certs ........................................................................................................................................................
1,387
2,321
29,752
629
10,362
2,854
493
1,397
77,900
266,900
2,651,300
7,900
796,100
142,900
130,400
35,700
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
49,195
4,109,300
Proprietary:
UG Certificates .................................................................................................................................................
Associate ..........................................................................................................................................................
Bachelor’s .........................................................................................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...................................................................................................................................................
Master’s ............................................................................................................................................................
Doctoral ............................................................................................................................................................
Professional ......................................................................................................................................................
Grad Certs ........................................................................................................................................................
3,218
1,720
963
52
478
122
32
128
549,900
326,800
675,800
800
240,000
54,000
12,100
10,800
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
6,713
1,870,100
Foreign Private:
UG Certificates .................................................................................................................................................
Associate ..........................................................................................................................................................
Bachelor’s .........................................................................................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...................................................................................................................................................
Master’s ............................................................................................................................................................
Doctoral ............................................................................................................................................................
Professional ......................................................................................................................................................
Grad Certs ........................................................................................................................................................
28
18
1,228
27
3,075
793
104
77
100
100
5,500
<50
9,000
2,800
1,500
1,500
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
5,350
20,400
Foreign For-Profit:
UG Certificates .................................................................................................................................................
Master’s ............................................................................................................................................................
Doctoral ............................................................................................................................................................
Professional ......................................................................................................................................................
1
6
4
7
<50
200
1,900
11,600
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
18
13,700
Total:
UG Certificates .................................................................................................................................................
Associate ..........................................................................................................................................................
Bachelor’s .........................................................................................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...................................................................................................................................................
Master’s ............................................................................................................................................................
Doctoral ............................................................................................................................................................
Professional ......................................................................................................................................................
Grad Certs ........................................................................................................................................................
23,605
31,371
56,281
1,580
28,503
9,497
1,204
3,541
1,497,500
6,090,700
9,133,200
21,400
1,805,800
346,800
283,100
89,900
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
155,582
19,268,200
Note: Counts are rounded to the nearest 100.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
There are 123,524 degree programs at
public or private nonprofit institutions
(hereafter, ‘‘eligible non-GE programs’’
or ‘‘non-GE programs’’) in the 2022 PPD
that will be subject to the transparency
regulations in subpart Q but not the GE
regulations in subpart S.215 These
programs served approximately 16.3
million students annually who received
title IV, HEA aid, totaling $25 billion in
grants and $61 billion in loans. Table
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
215 Throughout the RIA, ‘‘not-for-profit’’ and
‘‘nonprofit’’ are used interchangeably to refer to
private nonprofit institutions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70103
2.2 displays the number of non-GE
programs by two-digit CIP code,
credential level, and institutional
control in the 2022 PPD. Two-digit CIP
codes aggregate programs by broad
subject area. Table 2.3 displays
enrollment of students receiving title IV,
HEA program funds in non-GE programs
in the same categories.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
1: Agriculture & Related
Sciences ......................
3: Natural Resources &
Conservation ................
4: Architecture & Related
Services .......................
5: Area, Ethnic, Cultural,
Gender, & Group Studies ................................
9: Communication ...........
10: Communications Tech
11: Computer & Information Sciences & Support Services ................
12: Personal & Culinary
Services .......................
13: Education ..................
14: Engineering ...............
15: Engineering Tech ......
16: Foreign Languages ...
19: Family & Consumer
Sciences/Human
Sciences ......................
22: Legal Professions &
Studies .........................
23: English Language .....
24: Liberal Arts ................
25: Library Science .........
26: Biological & Biomedical Sciences .........
27: Mathematics & Statistics ................................
28: Military Science .........
29: Military Tech ..............
30: Multi/Interdisciplinary
Studies .........................
31: Parks & Rec ..............
32: Basic Skills & Developmental/Remedial
Education .....................
33: Citizenship Activities
34: Health-Related Knowledge & Skills ................
35: Interpersonal & Social
Skills .............................
36: Leisure & Recreational Activities ........
37: Personal Awareness
& Self-Improvement .....
38: Philosophy & Religious Studies ...............
39: Theology & Religious
Vocations .....................
40: Physical Sciences .....
41: Science Technologies/Technicians ...
42: Psychology ................
43: Homeland Security ....
44: Public Admin & Social
Services .......................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
2
..............
10
..............
435
1
1,262
11
584
392
474
..............
12
..............
76
2
440
171
259
1,253
375
1
..............
18
..............
4
716
474
440
341
368
586
660
5
2
20
1,158
1,556
563
960
539
975
516
2,375
286
243
..............
8
857
1,986
1,222
366
807
63
84
460
312
370
216
91
98
645
438
7
433
260
437
262
1,035
33
507
Bach.
693
Assoc.
10OCR2
495
7
477
195
..................
604
117
..................
3
..................
..................
2
..................
372
253
432
1
3
894
81
451
120
57
182
..................
2,204
1,243
164
332
460
128
301
9
224
219
267
Master’s
Public
111
1
257
25
..............
418
72
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
115
53
192
..............
..............
793
18
121
11
12
59
..............
641
719
13
167
126
58
75
..............
43
114
143
Doct.
6
2
1
8
..............
8
..............
..............
3
1
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
6
3
2
..............
..............
15
97
4
5
2
2
..............
36
15
..............
5
1
2
2
..............
Prof.
40
3
36
106
144
10
20
..............
1
..............
1
1
..............
33
18
5
..............
1
28
44
10
265
..............
13
27
94
12
98
4
127
3
28
10
4
10
20
Assoc.
509
9
1,053
476
861
1,232
980
..............
21
1
4
..............
1
1,023
571
856
2
9
1,678
158
1,063
661
2
178
21
1,725
833
136
1,148
1,051
413
1,221
97
102
445
95
Bach.
254
1
424
161
567
176
161
1
1
..................
1
..................
..................
259
103
135
1
9
389
107
208
114
16
48
2
2,103
524
89
102
297
58
216
16
117
67
14
Master’s
8
5
13
Doct.
45
..............
189
4
167
167
80
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
52
6
81
..............
..............
349
42
57
9
2
12
..............
299
271
7
93
59
25
20
..............
Private, Nonprofit
4
..............
13
..............
60
..............
8
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
4
..............
1
..............
..............
7
114
..............
2
1
1
..............
25
..............
1
1
2
..............
..............
..............
4
..............
..............
Prof.
..............
..............
..............
..............
3
1
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
2
1
..............
..............
..............
..............
1
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
1
..............
..............
..............
1
..............
1
..............
..............
..............
..............
Assoc.
6
7
61
2
16
33
17
..............
7
..............
1
..............
..............
45
9
15
1
..............
75
36
57
52
1
6
..............
32
70
6
39
36
11
61
6
14
12
10
Bach.
73
15
127
20
42
67
43
..................
22
1
14
..................
2
139
21
30
3
1
171
94
130
43
14
24
2
111
86
25
91
59
70
102
7
54
80
27
Master’s
Foreign
TABLE 2.2—NUMBER OF NON-GE PROGRAMS BY CIP2, CREDENTIAL LEVEL, AND CONTROL
9
6
7
5
34
3
26
41
26
..............
6
..............
2
..............
..............
27
6
11
..............
..............
58
17
57
17
2
1
..............
29
33
2
26
11
20
6
..............
12
Doct.
2
..............
3
1
1
1
1
..............
..............
..............
1
..............
..............
1
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
29
3
1
..............
1
..............
5
1
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
2
..............
..............
Prof.
2,403
230
3,525
2,638
1,890
4,455
2,037
1
83
2
30
22
3
3,234
1,859
2,663
13
33
6,049
1,373
3,068
2,773
149
1,481
611
9,438
5,879
3,479
3,254
5,073
1,238
3,300
520
902
1,659
1,788
Total
70104
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
1: Agriculture & Related Sciences .......
3: Natural Resources
& Conservation ......
4: Architecture & Related Services ........
5: Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Gender, &
Group Studies ........
9: Communication .....
10: Communications
Tech .......................
11: Computer & Information Sciences &
Support Services ...
12: Personal & Culinary Services ........
13: Education ............
14: Engineering .........
15: Engineering Tech
16: Foreign Languages ...................
19: Family & Consumer Sciences/
Human Sciences ....
22: Legal Professions
& Studies ...............
23: English Language
24: Liberal Arts ..........
25: Library Science ...
26: Biological & Biomedical Sciences ...
27: Mathematics &
Statistics .................
28: Military Science ...
29: Military Tech ........
30: Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies ...........
31: Parks & Rec ........
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1,929
2,688
1
480
..............
4,288
3,669
1
165
1
210,200
1,000
318,400
352,200
61,800
51,800
78,700
13,200
110,700
549,800
300
419,700
62,500
<50
500
185,400
170,200
47,900
140,600
73,900
120,400
14,600
83,500
33,700
26,500
2,048,400
900
94,700
21,500
....................
2,700
147,300
43,100
7,600
22,200
24,000
5,300
21,100
228,200
50,800
10,200
2,700
40,900
65,500
Bach.
24,100
Assoc.
1,746
1,442
..................
271
4
1,407
1,131
637
7
..................
1
826
1
..............
103
1
575
143
144
1
..............
..............
400
..............
..............
3
1
299
18
8
..............
..............
..............
13
..............
..............
9
..............
486
415
83
10
41
13
27
21
2
737
..............
1,794
3,556
2,585
35
8
5
2,391
4
1
83
1
1,306
1,554
393
5
..................
2
276
..................
..............
48
..............
406
109
69
2
..............
..............
158
..............
..............
..............
..............
216
24
1
..............
..............
..............
4
..............
..............
..............
..............
3
1
2
..............
..............
..............
1
..............
..............
40
..............
45
129
128
..............
..............
..............
142
..............
..................
90
6
168
387
225
1
..................
..................
385
3
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
10,400
12,300
6,300
<50
<50
17,400
2,700
11,200
9,300
11,000
5,500
3,900
..................
195,800
26,400
4,700
18,000
100
2,100
8,400
8,400
5,300
5,300
Master’s
Public
1,600
1,000
2,200
..............
..............
11,000
3,900
3,800
300
100
700
1,800
..............
29,700
8,100
200
1,500
..............
900
1,500
500
1,400
1,300
Doct.
<50
<50
<50
..............
..............
100
30,900
<50
100
100
<50
<50
..............
1,800
100
..............
200
..............
<50
<50
300
<50
<50
Prof.
1,500
1,100
<50
..............
<50
800
2,900
100
44,600
..............
1,900
100
9,700
4,500
300
5,200
10,000
300
<50
500
100
300
700
Assoc.
48,300
64,300
24,800
<50
900
163,100
7,200
45,800
263,200
<50
18,900
20,900
6,900
147,400
85,200
8,700
89,200
7,600
7,700
91,800
7,700
15,700
5,200
Bach.
7,300
7,500
1,400
<50
700
11,000
5,400
8,400
4,900
2,000
2,500
1,000
100
175,600
10,500
2,400
14,400
500
1,100
9,700
4,300
2,200
200
Master’s
600
300
100
200
<50
Doct.
1,100
300
500
..............
..............
5,100
9,200
1,000
200
<50
100
700
..............
27,500
3,100
200
700
..............
Private, nonprofit
<50
..............
<50
..............
..............
200
48,200
..............
<50
100
<50
<50
..............
1,900
..............
0
<50
..............
..............
..............
100
..............
..............
Prof.
<50
<50
..............
..............
..............
..............
0
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
0
..............
..............
<50
..............
..............
<50
..............
..............
..............
Assoc.
200
<50
<50
<50
..............
200
100
200
900
<50
<50
100
..............
100
200
<50
100
<50
<50
200
<50
100
<50
Bach.
500
100
<50
<50
<50
400
200
300
400
100
100
200
<50
200
100
<50
100
<50
200
300
100
100
100
Master’s
Foreign
TABLE 2.3—TITLE IV ENROLLMENT OF NON-GE PROGRAMS BY CIP2, CREDENTIAL LEVEL, AND CONTROL
57
19
2
1,059
433
114
2,092
11
734
464
200,300
45: Social Sciences .........
46: Construction Trades ..
47: Mechanic & Repair
Technologies/Technicians .............................
48: Precision Production
49: Transportation & Materials Moving ...............
50: Visual & Performing
Arts ...............................
51: Health Professions &
Related Programs ........
52: Business ....................
53: High School/Secondary Diplomas ..........
54: History .......................
60: Residency Programs
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
100
<50
<50
..............
..............
100
<50
100
100
<50
<50
<50
..............
100
<50
0
<50
..............
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
Doct.
..............
46
2
41
25
54
2
..............
..............
122
1
<50
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
100
<50
<50
..............
0
..............
..............
<50
0
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
<50
..............
..............
Prof.
..............
1
..............
44
3
1
..............
..............
..............
2
..............
403,800
300,000
119,200
100
4,800
724,000
157,900
208,200
2,922,000
14,600
191,800
95,100
65,600
1,043,600
560,300
203,500
544,700
38,400
36,500
381,800
51,000
86,300
102,500
Total
5
2,076
16
13,007
13,852
7,518
234
1,127
456
7,573
505
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
70105
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
<50
..............
0
123,300
124,200
14,300
300
<50
..................
5,900
..................
<50
1,600
63,800
1,100
18,300
66,200
15,500
<50
9,000
100,500
320,200
53,800
82,800
13,100
591,600
876,800
167,500
218,200
100
24,900
902,300
641,600
1,500
330,000
16,300
81,000
..................
7,000
215,900
<50
114,300
<50
44,300
1,100
118,600
18,400
2,100
..................
11,900
..............
....................
<50
6,900
700
600
..................
<50
..............
....................
..................
23,700
500
700
..................
700
..............
....................
200
Master’s
71,000
<50
Bach.
400
Assoc.
Public
<50
..............
2,200
37,800
2,000
3,400
<50
..............
..............
..............
2,200
7,400
500
<50
9,700
..............
7,500
1,000
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
Doct.
<50
..............
<50
91,500
1,000
<50
..............
..............
..............
..............
900
200
..............
..............
100
..............
<50
<50
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
Prof.
..............
..............
100
98,700
40,500
3,000
1,300
600
7,700
1,000
5,500
300
12,500
100
3,100
5,700
100
2,100
..............
<50
..............
<50
..............
100
Assoc.
..............
<50
25,700
328,300
490,100
137,400
9,800
100
1,200
100
49,700
125,700
84,800
400
157,300
51,800
33,700
23,600
..............
700
<50
100
<50
..............
Bach.
<50
<50
2,400
154,900
190,400
12,800
1,400
<50
..................
..................
45,500
11,900
12,000
<50
49,200
38,100
1,100
3,100
<50
<50
..................
<50
..................
..................
Master’s
Doct.
..............
..............
1,000
54,800
6,700
1,100
<50
..............
..............
..............
1,000
2,300
100
..............
16,100
4,500
2,500
1,600
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
Private, nonprofit
..............
..............
..............
75,400
1,100
<50
..............
..............
..............
..............
500
<50
..............
..............
500
2,300
..............
100
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
Prof.
..............
..............
..............
<50
0
<50
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
0
..............
..............
..............
<50
0
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
Assoc.
..............
..............
100
200
600
600
..............
..............
..............
..............
<50
800
<50
<50
300
100
100
<50
..............
<50
..............
<50
..............
..............
Bach.
<50
..................
300
600
1,200
900
<50
..................
..................
<50
100
1,700
<50
<50
300
100
100
100
..................
<50
<50
<50
<50
..................
Master’s
Foreign
<50
..............
100
1,000
<50
100
<50
..............
..............
<50
<50
300
<50
<50
100
100
100
100
..............
<50
..............
<50
..............
..............
Doct.
TABLE 2.3—TITLE IV ENROLLMENT OF NON-GE PROGRAMS BY CIP2, CREDENTIAL LEVEL, AND CONTROL—Continued
Note: Counts rounded to the nearest 100.
32: Basic Skills & Developmental/Remedial Education ........
33: Citizenship Activities .........................
34: Health-Related
Knowledge & Skills
35: Interpersonal &
Social Skills ............
36: Leisure & Recreational Activities ..
37: Personal Awareness & Self-Improvement ..............
38: Philosophy & Religious Studies .........
39: Theology & Religious Vocations .....
40: Physical Sciences
41: Science Technologies/Technicians .......................
42: Psychology ..........
43: Homeland Security ..........................
44: Public Admin &
Social Services ......
45: Social Sciences ...
46: Construction
Trades ....................
47: Mechanic & Repair Technologies/
Technicians ............
48: Precision Production .........................
49: Transportation &
Materials Moving ....
50: Visual & Performing Arts ...........
51: Health Professions & Related
Programs ...............
52: Business ..............
53: High School/Secondary Diplomas ....
54: History .................
60: Residency Programs .....................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
..............
..............
0
1,400
<50
<50
..............
..............
..............
..............
<50
<50
<50
..............
<50
<50
<50
<50
..............
..............
..............
<50
..............
..............
Prof.
<50
600
100
1,600
110,500
2,461,800
2,376,100
508,200
31,700
24,400
80,700
20,500
326,100
569,200
508,700
18,500
672,500
102,800
210,700
53,200
<50
2,100
<50
1,400
Total
70106
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
GE programs are non-degree
programs, including diploma and
certificate programs, at public and
private nonprofit institutions and
educational programs at for-profit
institutions of higher education
regardless of program length or
credential level.216 Common GE
programs provide training for
occupations in fields such as
cosmetology, business administration,
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
216 ‘‘For-profit’’ and ‘‘proprietary’’ are used
interchangeably throughout this RIA. Foreign
schools are schools located outside of the United
States at which eligible US students can use Federal
student aid.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
medical assisting, dental assisting,
nursing, and massage therapy. There
were 32,058 GE programs in the 2022
PPD.217 About two-thirds of these
programs are at public institutions, 11
percent at private nonprofit institutions,
and 21 percent at for-profit institutions.
In AY 2016 or 2017, these programs
annually served approximately 2.9
217 Note that the 2022 PPD will differ from the
universe of programs that are subject to the final GE
regulations for the reasons described in more detail
in the ‘‘Data Used in this RIA’’ section, including
that the 2022 PPD includes programs defined by
four-digit CIP code while the rule defines programs
by six-digit CIP code.
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70107
million students who received title IV,
HEA aid. The Federal investment in
students attending GE programs is
significant and growing. In AY 2022,
students enrolled in GE programs
received approximately $5 billion in
Federal Pell grant funding and
approximately $11 billion in Federal
student loans. Table 2.4 displays the
number of GE programs grouped by twodigit CIP code, credential level, and
institutional control in the 2022 PPD.
Table 2.5 displays enrollment of
students receiving title IV, HEA program
funds in GE programs in the same
categories.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
1: Agriculture & Related
Sciences .....................
3: Natural Resources &
Conservation ..............
4: Architecture & Related
Services ......................
5: Area, Ethnic, Cultural,
Gender, & Group
Studies ........................
9: Communication ..........
10: Communications
Tech ............................
11: Computer & Information Sciences & Support Services ..............
12: Personal & Culinary
Services ......................
13: Education .................
14: Engineering ..............
15: Engineering Tech .....
16: Foreign Languages ..
19: Family & Consumer
Sciences/Human
Sciences .....................
22: Legal Professions &
Studies ........................
23: English Language ....
24: Liberal Arts ...............
25: Library Science ........
26: Biological & Biomedical Sciences .......
27: Mathematics & Statistics ...........................
28: Military Science ........
29: Military Tech ............
30: Multi/Interdisciplinary
Studies ........................
31: Parks & Rec .............
32: Basic Skills & Developmental/Remedial
Education ....................
33: Citizenship Activities
34: Health-Related
Knowledge & Skills .....
35: Interpersonal & Social Skills .....................
36: Leisure & Recreational Activities ......
37: Personal Awareness
& Self-Improvement ....
38: Philosophy & Religious Studies ..............
39: Theology & Religious
Vocations ....................
40: Physical Sciences ....
41: Science Technologies/Technicians ..
42: Psychology ...............
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
..........
..........
..........
1
1
..........
7
2
23
4
..........
5
1
15
1
41
75
38
51
7
156
145
..........
..........
12
..........
..........
18
..........
6
26
1
22
69
18
18
15
7
285
79
329
22
2
222
31
5
15
788
461
98
1,453
205
7
28
1,479
530
2
272
10
29
14
12
10
91
61
171
4
10OCR2
3
74
..........
16
7
1
..........
..........
3
..........
..........
105
15
26
1
1
61
15
35
22
16
23
2
494
62
21
9
64
2
42
38
10
21
3
1
19
60
15
23
..........
2
..........
1
4
..........
26
14
10
..........
1
22
35
13
22
..........
18
34
62
10
34
37
51
3
14
25
4
8
7
UG
certs
1
20
49
..........
6
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
23
3
2
..........
..........
14
15
5
18
1
5
1
134
6
4
5
31
3
4
7
1
1
..........
..........
59
50
5
7
..........
..........
1
2
1
..........
36
9
3
..........
3
25
26
6
19
5
7
..........
406
33
4
3
36
3
12
16
8
2
2
Grad
cert
PostBA
cert
Grad
cert
PostBA
cert
375
UG
certs
Private, nonprofit
Public
1
..........
..........
1
..........
..........
1
..........
5
7
..........
5
25
..........
1
1
2
36
11
1
..........
10
900
35
4
84
..........
140
24
1
14
1
2
11
UG
certs
1
2
1
1
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
4
25
...........
1
2
1
66
5
10
...........
8
79
20
5
71
...........
168
23
...........
14
...........
...........
4
Assoc.
..........
14
5
3
3
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
14
8
2
1
1
8
24
11
12
1
11
11
33
10
21
2
110
24
..........
25
4
5
1
Bach.
..........
2
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
2
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
4
..........
..........
..........
1
4
8
..........
1
..........
1
1
..........
..........
..........
1
1
PostBA
cert
................
19
7
................
1
................
1
................
................
1
................
6
2
................
................
1
1
5
2
2
................
2
6
63
5
4
................
41
3
................
9
3
1
................
Master’s
Proprietary
..........
15
1
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
1
..........
..........
..........
2
1
..........
1
..........
1
3
23
..........
..........
..........
4
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
Doct.
..........
..........
1
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
8
..........
..........
..........
..........
4
1
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
2
..........
..........
Prof.
..........
7
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
5
1
..........
1
..........
1
..........
..........
..........
..........
2
7
29
..........
1
..........
8
..........
..........
1
..........
1
..........
Grad
cert
..........
1
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
1
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
2
..........
..........
..........
2
1
1
..........
2
..........
1
1
1
..........
..........
..........
UG
certs
..........
..........
1
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
1
2
..........
1
..........
..........
..........
2
1
..........
..........
..........
..........
3
..........
1
..........
..........
PostBA
cert
TABLE 2.4—NUMBER OF GE PROGRAMS BY CIP2, CREDENTIAL LEVEL, AND CONTROL
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
3
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
Master’s
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
Doct.
Foreign
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
Prof.
..........
3
..........
1
1
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
2
1
..........
..........
..........
2
12
3
1
..........
..........
..........
5
1
3
..........
1
..........
1
2
1
..........
1
Grad
cert
84
296
176
90
64
3
9
1
15
39
1
435
257
73
5
16
234
552
190
453
52
625
1,843
1,999
267
1,706
278
2,162
361
153
335
74
143
409
Total
70108
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
2
16
124
100
..........
9
1
187
540
4,025
2,733
4
18
3
..........
7
3
327
189
48
2
1
..........
59
79
..........
32
42
..........
8
1
386
140
75
11
42
18
17
44
28
..........
..........
1
132
83
29
..........
..........
..........
6
11
..........
8
30
..........
..........
2
274
208
36
..........
..........
..........
28
29
1
1
1
2
1,261
198
65
32
188
51
3
..........
62
31
1
1
...........
637
308
85
5
65
13
5
1
14
74
..........
6
..........
174
233
98
..........
1
..........
14
15
..........
58
..........
..........
..........
8
15
1
..........
..........
..........
1
..........
..........
1
23
................
1
................
101
117
26
1
................
................
19
5
................
..........
..........
..........
35
23
..........
..........
..........
..........
7
1
..........
4
..........
..........
..........
..........
11
4
1
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
6
..........
1
..........
25
27
1
..........
..........
..........
4
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
2
2
8
..........
..........
..........
..........
3
1
..........
3
..........
2
2
3
..........
..........
..........
2
3
..........
..........
................
Frm 00107
Grad
cert
<50
<50
<50
100
100
<50
200
<50
4,500
200
<50
<50
<50
500
100
500
100
100
200
..........
..........
700
<50
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
<50
<50
..........
<50
<50
300
200
700
400
..........
800
3,700
4,700
34,500
31,000
16,100
8,600
22,500
4,600
Fmt 4701
22,100
7,100
3,900
139,500
300
2,700
400
..............
100
14,100
4,000
Sfmt 4700
600
<50
100
..............
200
100
200
<50
900
2,200
2,700
33,400
6,500
3,200
18,000
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
............
............
<50
............
............
500
<50
............
100
<50
1,400
600
800
700
............
200
400
300
3,000
400
600
100
<50
<50
1,600
200
1,100
<50
16,000
500
300
<50
300
400
<50
<50
200
<50
<50
............
0
............
<50
............
200
2,300
100
<50
400
1,200
100
500
1,800
500
900
1,600
1,400
............
300
100
............
<50
500
500
1,200
3,200
1,700
300
1,100
400
100
300
<50
200
100
<50
UG
certs
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
<50
200
..........
<50
200
100
100
100
..........
100
400
100
500
<50
100
<50
..........
..........
500
<50
300
<50
2,400
<50
<50
<50
100
<50
<50
..........
<50
<50
<50
............
<50
0
............
............
200
1,700
<50
............
2,200
300
400
500
<50
100
800
<50
600
100
200
<50
............
100
500
100
500
............
14,100
200
<50
<50
100
200
<50
<50
<50
<50
Grad
cert
PostBA
cert
PostBA
cert
5,600
1,200
600
UG
certs
Private, nonprofit
Public
500
..............
100
..............
<50
..............
..............
..............
0
100
..............
2,300
200
..............
8,300
600
1,200
4,300
<50
..............
<50
..............
<50
<50
100
800
8,900
176,800
800
200
14,500
..............
<50
3,300
3,200
300
100
<50
UG
certs
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
<50
<50
100
<50
21,400
4,300
<50
900
2,100
6,700
700
2,300
..............
<50
..............
<50
200
3,500
1,600
20,500
7,600
6,700
500
6,300
..............
..............
400
2,700
<50
..............
..............
Assoc.
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
500
3,200
<50
..............
20,300
60,100
22,500
6,100
..............
4,500
2,200
4,300
3,800
300
2,700
400
200
100
25,000
5,700
52,500
1,100
33,500
1,500
8,000
300
..............
6,700
7,300
<50
4,400
600
Bach.
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
<50
0
<50
..........
..........
<50
200
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
<50
..........
<50
<50
100
..........
<50
..........
..........
..........
<50
<50
<50
..........
PostBA
cert
<50
............
............
............
<50
............
100
900
............
............
17,800
7,000
10,100
1,400
............
1,000
400
300
200
............
<50
............
............
<50
1,200
500
6,400
200
37,000
100
1,400
............
............
800
200
............
400
200
Master’s
Proprietary
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
300
............
............
10,100
700
4,400
700
............
300
<50
............
100
............
<50
............
............
............
............
<50
800
<50
15,800
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
Doct.
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
300
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
1,700
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
<50
1,100
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
300
Prof.
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
2,200
200
100
..........
..........
100
..........
..........
..........
..........
<50
..........
0
..........
300
<50
300
100
2,100
..........
<50
..........
..........
<50
..........
..........
<50
..........
Grad
cert
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
<50
..........
..........
<50
<50
..........
..........
<50
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
<50
..........
<50
0
0
..........
<50
<50
<50
0
..........
..........
..........
UG
certs
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
0
..........
..........
..........
..........
<50
<50
..........
..........
<50
..........
<50
..........
0
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
<50
<50
..........
..........
<50
..........
..........
..........
..........
0
PostBA
cert
..........
..........
..........
..........
4
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
<50
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
Master’s
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
Doct.
Foreign
................
................
................
3
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
TABLE 2.5—TITLE IV ENROLLMENT OF GE PROGRAMS BY CIP2, CREDENTIAL LEVEL, AND CONTROL
1
..........
28
30
..........
161
164
840
1,469
751
15
747
Agriculture & Related Sciences ......................
Natural Resources & Conservation ................
Architecture & Related Services .....................
Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Gender, & Group
Studies .............................................................
9: Communication ...............................................
10: Communications Tech ..................................
11: Computer & Information Sciences & Support
Services ...........................................................
12: Personal & Culinary Services .......................
13: Education ......................................................
14: Engineering ...................................................
15: Engineering Tech ..........................................
16: Foreign Languages .......................................
19: Family & Consumer Sciences/Human
Sciences ..........................................................
22: Legal Professions & Studies .........................
23: English Language .........................................
24: Liberal Arts ....................................................
25: Library Science .............................................
26: Biological & Biomedical Sciences .................
27: Mathematics & Statistics ...............................
28: Military Science .............................................
29: Military Tech ..................................................
30: Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies ........................
31: Parks & Rec ..................................................
32: Basic Skills & Developmental/Remedial
Education .........................................................
33: Citizenship Activities .....................................
34: Health-Related Knowledge & Skills ..............
35: Interpersonal & Social Skills .........................
36: Leisure & Recreational Activities ..................
37: Personal Awareness & Self-Improvement ....
38: Philosophy & Religious Studies ....................
39: Theology & Religious Vocations ...................
40: Physical Sciences .........................................
41: Science Technologies/Technicians ...............
42: Psychology ....................................................
43: Homeland Security ........................................
44: Public Admin & Social Services ....................
45: Social Sciences .............................................
46: Construction Trades ......................................
1:
3:
4:
5:
43: Homeland Security ..
44: Public Admin & Social Services ...............
45: Social Sciences .......
46: Construction Trades
47: Mechanic & Repair
Technologies/Technicians ...........................
48: Precision Production
49: Transportation & Materials Moving .............
50: Visual & Performing
Arts .............................
51: Health Professions &
Related Programs ......
52: Business ..................
53: High School/Secondary Diplomas ........
54: History ......................
60: Residency Programs
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
..........
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
Prof.
..........
..........
..........
7
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
<50
..........
<50
..........
<50
..........
<50
<50
..........
..........
<50
<50
<50
..........
<50
..........
..........
..........
<50
<50
<50
..........
<50
<50
<50
..........
0
<50
..........
<50
..........
<50
Grad
cert
..........
..........
1
5
14
10
..........
..........
..........
1
5
..........
..........
1,100
<50
200
0
300
600
1,200
8,900
1,200
2,400
57,500
127,500
50,100
13,600
28,900
31,600
22,600
15,700
151,900
1,100
6,900
1,300
200
400
48,100
13,500
127,100
220,100
152,000
11,900
54,100
5,400
1,500
15,800
18,200
6,200
6,400
1,700
Total
6
55
14
7,543
4,396
1,042
240
1,767
833
355
390
946
1,071
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
70109
VerDate Sep<11>2014
48,800
34,100
4,900
15,000
275,000
95,500
<50
400
<50
UG
certs
0
..........
<50
100
1,800
1,700
..........
<50
<50
<50
............
<50
300
7,400
4,300
............
<50
100
4,100
2,500
700
2,100
43,100
4,100
............
100
<50
UG
certs
..........
..........
..........
200
1,900
700
..........
..........
<50
............
............
............
400
7,800
4,500
............
............
<50
Grad
cert
PostBA
cert
PostBA
cert
Grad
cert
Private, nonprofit
Public
59,200
13,000
9,500
2,600
229,100
9,800
<50
0
100
UG
certs
10,400
1,000
200
7,700
148,200
70,500
<50
200
..............
Assoc.
<50
..............
..............
29,700
139,600
226,500
..............
2,200
..............
Bach.
..........
..........
..........
0
<50
400
..........
..........
..........
PostBA
cert
............
............
<50
3,100
74,200
74,200
............
900
............
Master’s
Proprietary
............
............
............
............
11,700
9,200
............
............
............
Doct.
..........
..........
..........
<50
8,800
100
..........
..........
..........
Prof.
..........
..........
..........
<50
2,200
2,900
..........
100
..........
Grad
cert
..........
..........
..........
<50
<50
<50
..........
..........
..........
UG
certs
..........
..........
..........
<50
<50
<50
..........
<50
..........
PostBA
cert
..........
..........
..........
..........
200
..........
..........
..........
..........
Master’s
..........
..........
..........
..........
1,900
..........
..........
..........
..........
Doct.
Foreign
TABLE 2.5—TITLE IV ENROLLMENT OF GE PROGRAMS BY CIP2, CREDENTIAL LEVEL, AND CONTROL—Continued
47: Mechanic & Repair Technologies/Technicians .................................................................
48: Precision Production .....................................
49: Transportation & Materials Moving ...............
50: Visual & Performing Arts ...............................
51: Health Professions & Related Programs ......
52: Business ........................................................
53: High School/Secondary Diplomas ................
54: History ...........................................................
60: Residency Programs .....................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
............
............
............
............
11,600
............
............
............
............
Prof.
..........
..........
..........
<50
1,300
100
..........
..........
<50
Grad
cert
122,600
50,700
15,300
61,200
965,700
504,300
100
3,900
300
Total
70110
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70111
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Tables 2.6 and 2.7 show the student
characteristics of title IV, HEA students
in non-GE and GE programs,
respectively, by institutional control,
predominant degree of the institution,
and credential level. In all three types
of institutional control, the majority of
students served by the programs are
female students. At public non-GE
programs, out of all enrolled title IV,
HEA students: 58 percent received a
Pell grant, 31 percent are 24 years or
older, 36 percent are independent, and
43 percent non-white. At non-GE
programs at nonprofit private
institutions, 43 percent of students
received a Pell Grant, 37 percent are 24
years or older, 44 percent are
independent, and 43 percent are nonwhite. Sixty-eight percent of students in
the average public GE program ever
received a Pell grant, 44 percent are 24
years or older, 50 percent are
independent, and 46 percent are nonwhite. At for-profit GE programs, 67
percent of students received a Pell grant,
66 percent are 24 years or older, 72
percent are independent, and 59 percent
are non-white.
TABLE 2.6—CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-GE STUDENTS BY CONTROL, PREDOMINANT DEGREE, AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL
[Enrollment-weighted]
Percent of students who are . . .
Average EFC
Age 24+
I
Male
I
Pell
I Non-white I Independent
Public
Less-Than 2-Year:
Associate ..........................................................................
Bachelor’s .........................................................................
Master’s ............................................................................
2-Year:
Associate ..........................................................................
Bachelor’s .........................................................................
Master’s ............................................................................
Professional ......................................................................
4-Year or Above:
Associate ..........................................................................
Bachelor’s .........................................................................
Master’s ............................................................................
Doctoral .............................................................................
Professional ......................................................................
Total:
Total ..................................................................................
5,700
10,600
8,700
36.4
59.4
71.8
37.2
40.6
34.7
73.8
54.0
36.1
41.8
37.4
27.7
41.7
62.6
81.5
5,800
9,300
7,600
5,800
29.6
48.3
79.6
100.0
37.5
41.3
37.4
33.3
74.1
69.4
52.2
33.3
49.3
40.3
63.7
..................
34.8
55.6
90.9
100.0
7,600
16,600
11,900
10,400
7,800
36.5
24.0
60.6
69.9
55.7
37.8
43.3
35.9
41.4
48.4
67.0
47.3
32.9
28.0
10.8
39.7
39.8
40.2
44.1
37.1
42.2
27.0
72.7
84.1
91.7
11,300
30.5
40.2
57.8
43.2
35.6
2,600
9,100
9,200
5,500
4,600
64.6
65.8
52.2
24.7
52.0
33.8
37.1
30.7
14.6
54.6
89.7
67.0
37.7
32.1
1.9
65.9
62.6
56.3
41.2
39.6
74.8
70.0
61.4
58.5
97.1
6,300
8,300
9,600
9,600
47.4
60.7
86.5
81.3
34.8
40.7
34.0
26.4
72.4
68.3
28.9
14.6
52.2
51.4
69.9
62.5
53.6
64.8
89.2
100.0
6,800
17,600
13,100
12,200
9,200
54.9
23.2
67.3
69.4
57.2
34.6
39.9
35.3
41.1
48.8
70.2
48.9
25.0
17.7
10.1
49.3
40.2
45.9
49.7
43.0
60.5
26.1
78.0
87.1
89.1
15,400
37.3
39.0
43.3
42.6
43.5
Private, Nonprofit
Less-Than 2-Year:
Associate ..........................................................................
Bachelor’s .........................................................................
Master’s ............................................................................
Doctoral .............................................................................
Professional ......................................................................
2-Year:
Associate ..........................................................................
Bachelor’s .........................................................................
Master’s ............................................................................
Doctoral .............................................................................
4-Year or Above:
Associate ..........................................................................
Bachelor’s .........................................................................
Master’s ............................................................................
Doctoral .............................................................................
Professional ......................................................................
Total:
Total ..................................................................................
Note: Average EFC values rounded to the nearest 100. Credential levels with very few programs and most table elements missing are
suppressed.
TABLE 2.7—CHARACTERISTICS OF GE STUDENTS BY CONTROL, PREDOMINANT DEGREE, AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL
Percent of students who are . . .
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Average EFC
Age 24+
I
Male
I
Pell
I Non-white I Independent
Public
Less-Than 2-Year:
UG Certificates .................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...................................................................
Grad Certs ........................................................................
2-Year:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00109
4,500
6,300
8,100
Fmt 4701
I
Sfmt 4700
45.5
75.9
57.1
I
37.5
30.4
16.7
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
I
76.5
57.9
57.5
10OCR2
I
42.4
..................
32.1
I
53.1
78.2
65.2
70112
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.7—CHARACTERISTICS OF GE STUDENTS BY CONTROL, PREDOMINANT DEGREE, AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL—
Continued
Percent of students who are . . .
Average EFC
Age 24+
UG Certificates .................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...................................................................
Grad Certs ........................................................................
4-Year or Above:
UG Certificates .................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...................................................................
Grad Certs ........................................................................
Total:
Total ..................................................................................
Male
Pell
Non-white
Independent
6,100
10,800
7,600
41.9
47.2
89.7
37.8
23.7
68.1
70.3
58.4
68.9
50.9
..................
50.6
46.8
59.5
89.7
23,300
11,500
10,700
28.5
60.5
69.8
41.6
31.6
30.1
36.8
35.9
39.2
32.3
..................
36.2
31.8
71.3
79.0
7,100
43.7
37.6
68.3
45.7
49.8
4,900
15,600
7,600
48.3
51.0
28.2
36.6
59.2
38.7
80.2
3.3
3.1
63.7
..................
47.2
58.3
65.3
62.1
3,300
10,100
26,700
61.0
94.8
89.5
21.1
28.4
10.5
83.2
53.7
19.3
56.3
..................
100.0
73.8
94.8
100.0
10,500
14,200
11,500
37.4
60.1
70.8
35.8
31.8
32.8
66.4
36.0
29.8
65.8
..................
44.5
42.1
68.5
80.3
8,300
55.1
32.3
60.6
57.3
64.2
3,900
5,900
4,200
9,100
9,200
9,800
14,100
6,200
45.7
56.6
54.2
70.7
85.4
98.6
84.7
64.6
31.5
32.2
36.9
44.7
26.7
19.2
19.5
7.7
82.4
80.6
86.5
36.8
32.2
32.0
30.5
63.9
63.0
63.2
83.3
..................
62.1
47.6
54.2
6.6
56.5
63.7
57.3
77.2
90.4
99.7
100.0
67.4
4,800
5,700
7,900
13,400
7,100
0
5,700
3,700
48.4
51.8
61.6
86.4
82.3
0.0
71.6
64.8
39.8
33.3
42.7
25.0
42.1
0.0
46.0
32.4
77.8
77.8
70.5
39.4
31.0
100.0
14.6
0.0
64.2
60.6
65.0
..................
65.1
..................
36.7
24.3
57.1
58.1
67.9
86.4
89.5
0.0
99.0
67.6
5,400
5,400
9,700
7,500
11,300
19,800
7,100
11,900
77.7
75.4
75.2
84.6
82.3
92.9
89.0
88.6
22.1
31.9
40.7
28.5
30.2
30.0
25.7
27.1
76.2
76.1
64.2
54.7
38.8
25.2
47.1
38.2
55.4
57.2
54.6
..................
58.0
57.9
34.1
63.2
84.3
82.7
78.8
92.3
85.8
95.2
93.2
90.7
7,700
66.1
34.7
67.3
58.8
72.4
Private, Nonprofit
Less-Than 2-Year:
UG Certificates .................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...................................................................
Grad Certs ........................................................................
2-Year:
UG Certificates .................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...................................................................
Grad Certs ........................................................................
4-Year or Above:
UG Certificates .................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...................................................................
Grad Certs ........................................................................
Total:
Total ..................................................................................
Proprietary
Less-Than 2-Year:
UG Certificates .................................................................
Associate ..........................................................................
Bachelor’s .........................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...................................................................
Master’s ............................................................................
Doctoral .............................................................................
Professional ......................................................................
Grad Certs ........................................................................
2-Year:
UG Certificates .................................................................
Associate ..........................................................................
Bachelor’s .........................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...................................................................
Master’s ............................................................................
Doctoral .............................................................................
Professional ......................................................................
Grad Certs ........................................................................
4-Year or Above:
UG Certificates .................................................................
Associate ..........................................................................
Bachelor’s .........................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...................................................................
Master’s ............................................................................
Doctoral .............................................................................
Professional ......................................................................
Grad Certs ........................................................................
Total:
Total ..................................................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Note: EFC values rounded to the nearest 100.
Outcome Differences Across Programs
A large body of research provides
strong evidence of the many significant
benefits that postsecondary education
and training confers, both private and
social. Private pecuniary benefits
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
include higher wages and lower risk of
unemployment.218 Increased
218 Barrow, L., & Malamud, O. (2015). Is College
a Worthwhile Investment? Annual Review of
Economics, 7(1), 519–555. Card, D. (1999). The
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
educational attainment also confers
private nonpecuniary benefits, such as
better health, job satisfaction, and
causal effect of education on earnings. Handbook of
labor economics, 3, 1801–1863.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
overall happiness.219 Social benefits of
higher or increased number of
individuals with a postsecondary
education include productivity
spillovers from a better educated and
more flexible workforce,220 increased
civic participation,221 and
improvements in health and well-being
for the next generation.222 Improved
productivity and earnings increase tax
revenues from higher earnings and
lower rates of reliance on social safety
net programs. Even though the costs of
postsecondary education have risen,
there continues to be evidence that the
average financial returns to graduates
have also generally increased since at
least the 1980s.223
However, there is also substantial
heterogeneity in earnings and other
outcomes for students who graduate
from different types of institutions and
programs. Table 2.8 shows the
enrollment-weighted average borrowing
and default by control and credential
level. Mean borrowing amounts are for
title IV, HEA recipients who completed
their program in AY 2016 or 2017, with
students who did not borrow counting
as having borrowed $0. For borrowing,
our measure is the average for each
institutional control type and credential
level combination of program average
debt. For default, our measure is, among
borrowers (regardless of completion
status) who entered repayment in 2017,
70113
the fraction of borrowers who have ever
defaulted three years later. The cohort
default rate measure follows the
methodology for the official
institutional cohort default rate
measures calculated by the Department,
except done at the program level.
Though average debt tends to be higher
for higher-level credential programs,
default rates tend to be lower. At the
undergraduate level, average debt is
much lower for public programs than
private nonprofit and for-profit
programs and default rates are lower for
public and nonprofit programs than
those at for-profit institutions.
TABLE 2.8—AVERAGE DEBT AND COHORT DEFAULT RATE, BY CONTROL AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL
[Enrollment-weighted]
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Average debt
Public:
UG Certificates .................................................................................................................................................
Associate ..........................................................................................................................................................
Bachelor’s .........................................................................................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...................................................................................................................................................
Master’s ............................................................................................................................................................
Doctoral ............................................................................................................................................................
Professional ......................................................................................................................................................
Grad Certs ........................................................................................................................................................
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates .................................................................................................................................................
Associate ..........................................................................................................................................................
Bachelor’s .........................................................................................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...................................................................................................................................................
Master’s ............................................................................................................................................................
Doctoral ............................................................................................................................................................
Professional ......................................................................................................................................................
Grad Certs ........................................................................................................................................................
Proprietary:
UG Certificates .................................................................................................................................................
Associate ..........................................................................................................................................................
Bachelor’s .........................................................................................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...................................................................................................................................................
Master’s ............................................................................................................................................................
Doctoral ............................................................................................................................................................
Professional ......................................................................................................................................................
Grad Certs ........................................................................................................................................................
Foreign Private:
UG Certificates .................................................................................................................................................
Associate ..........................................................................................................................................................
Bachelor’s .........................................................................................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...................................................................................................................................................
Master’s ............................................................................................................................................................
Doctoral ............................................................................................................................................................
Professional ......................................................................................................................................................
Grad Certs ........................................................................................................................................................
Foreign For-Profit:
Master’s ............................................................................................................................................................
Doctoral ............................................................................................................................................................
219 Oreopoulos, P., & Salvanes, K.G. (2011).
Priceless: The Nonpecuniary Benefits of Schooling.
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(1), 159–184.
220 Moretti, E. (2004). Workers’ Education,
Spillovers, and Productivity: Evidence from PlantLevel Production Functions. American Economic
Review, 94(3), 656–690.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
221 Dee, T.S. (2004). Are There Civic Returns to
Education? Journal of Public Economics, 88(9–10),
1697–1720.
222 Currie, J., & Moretti, E. (2003). Mother’s
Education and the Intergenerational Transmission
of Human Capital: Evidence from College Openings.
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1495–
1532.
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Cohort
default rate
5,759
5,932
17,935
7,352
29,222
71,102
124,481
24,883
16.9
17.4
7.6
2.3
2.9
2.9
0.8
2.5
9,367
16,445
20,267
9,497
40,272
128,998
151,473
40,732
12.0
14.9
7.3
2.8
2.9
2.3
1.3
2.4
8,857
18,766
29,038
15,790
39,507
99,422
96,836
47,803
14.2
15.3
12.4
16.9
4.1
4.4
0.7
3.9
(*)
(*)
17,074
(*)
40,432
22,600
247,269
284,200
0.0
(*)
7.0
(*)
2.0
3.5
3.1
0.2
(*)
84,200
0.0
1.4
223 Avery, C. & Turner, S. (2013). Student Loans:
Do College Students Borrow Too Much-Or Not
Enough? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1),
165–192. Goldin, C. & Katz, L. (2008). The Race
Between Education and Technology. Harvard
University Press.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70114
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.8—AVERAGE DEBT AND COHORT DEFAULT RATE, BY CONTROL AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL—Continued
[Enrollment-weighted]
Average debt
Professional ......................................................................................................................................................
Cohort
default rate
280,667
1.3
* Cell suppressed because it based on a population of fewer than 30.
Table 2.9 shows median earnings (in
2019 dollars) for graduates (whether or
not they borrow) along these same
dimensions. Similar patterns hold for
earnings, with lower earnings in
proprietary programs than in public and
nonprofit programs for almost all types
of credential level.
TABLE 2.9—ENROLLMENT-WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF PROGRAM MEDIAN EARNINGS 3 YEARS AFTER PROGRAM
COMPLETION, BY CONTROL AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL
Median earnings 3
years after
completion
Public:
UG Certificates .......................................................................................................................................................................
Associate ................................................................................................................................................................................
Bachelor’s ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Post-BA Certs .........................................................................................................................................................................
Master’s ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Doctoral ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Professional ............................................................................................................................................................................
Grad Certs ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates .......................................................................................................................................................................
Associate ................................................................................................................................................................................
Bachelor’s ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Post-BA Certs .........................................................................................................................................................................
Master’s ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Doctoral ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Professional ............................................................................................................................................................................
Grad Certs ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Proprietary:
UG Certificates .......................................................................................................................................................................
Associate ................................................................................................................................................................................
Bachelor’s ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Post-BA Certs .........................................................................................................................................................................
Master’s ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Doctoral ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Professional ............................................................................................................................................................................
Grad Certs ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Foreign Private:
UG Certificates .......................................................................................................................................................................
Associate ................................................................................................................................................................................
Bachelor’s ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Post-BA Certs .........................................................................................................................................................................
Master’s ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Doctoral ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Professional ............................................................................................................................................................................
Grad Certs ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Foreign For-Profit:
Master’s ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Doctoral ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Professional ............................................................................................................................................................................
33,400
34,400
46,100
45,600
66,600
83,500
91,300
71,500
26,200
35,700
48,800
61,600
68,600
86,200
88,200
74,800
25,400
34,600
45,600
43,500
59,300
78,000
49,200
52,200
..............................
..............................
8,200
..............................
38,600
..............................
88,400
15,100
..............................
65,900
100,400
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Note: Values rounded to the nearest 100.
A growing body of research, described
below, shows that differences in
institution and program quality are
important contributors to the variation
in borrowing and earnings outcomes
described above. That is, differences in
graduates’ outcomes across programs are
not fully (or primarily) explained by the
characteristics of the students that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
attend. Differences in program quality—
measured by the causal effect of
attending the program on its students’
outcomes—are important.224 It is,
224 Black,
Dan A. & Smith, Jeffrey A. (2006).
Estimating the Returns to College Quality with
Multiple Proxies for Quality. Journal of labor
Economics 24.3: 701–728. Cohodes, Sarah R. &
Goodman, Joshua S. (2014). Merit Aid, College
Quality, and College Completion: Massachusetts’
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Adams Scholarship as an In-Kind Subsidy.
American Economic Journal: Applied Economics
6.4: 251–285. Andrews, Rodney J., Li, Jing &
Lovenheim, Michael F. (2016). Quantile treatment
effects of college quality on earnings. Journal of
Human Resources 51.1: 200–238. Dillon, Eleanor
Wiske & Smith, Jeffrey Andrew (2020). The
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
therefore, important to provide students
with this information and to hold
programs accountable for high levels of
student debt and poor earnings
outcomes. Research reviewed below
also shows that GE programs are the
programs least likely to reliably provide
an adequate return on investment, from
the perspective of both the student and
society. These findings imply that
aggregate student outcomes—including
their earnings and likelihood of positive
borrowing outcomes—would be
improved by limiting student
enrollment in low-quality programs.
A recent study computed
productivity—value-added per dollar of
social investment—for 6,700
undergraduate programs across the
United States.225 In that study,
productivity was measured using both
private (individual earnings) and social
(working in a public service job) notions
of value. A main finding was that
productivity varied widely even among
institutions serving students of similar
aptitude, especially at less selective
institutions. That is, a dollar spent
educating students does much more to
increase lifetime earnings potential and
public service at some programs than
others. The author concludes that
‘‘market forces alone may be too weak
to discipline productivity among these
schools.’’
The finding of substantial variation in
student outcomes across programs
serving similar students or at similar
types of institutions or in similar fields
has been documented in many other
more specific contexts. These include
community colleges in California,226
public two- and four-year programs in
Texas,227 master’s degree programs in
Ohio,228 law and medical schools, and
Consequences of Academic Match Between
Students and Colleges. Journal of Human Resources
55.3: 767–808.
225 Hoxby, C.M. (2019). The Productivity of US
Postsecondary Institutions. In Productivity in
Higher Education, Hoxby, C.M. & Stange, K.M.
(eds). University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
226 Carrell, S.E. & Kurleander, M. (2019).
Estimating the Productivity of Community Colleges
in Paving the Road to Four-Year College Success.
In Productivity in Higher Education, Hoxby, C.M. &
Stange, K.M. (eds). University of Chicago Press:
Chicago.
227 Andrews, R.J. & Stange, K.M. (2019). Price
Regulation, Price Discrimination, and Equality of
Opportunity in Higher Education: Evidence from
Texas. American Economic Journal: Economic
Policy, 11.4, 31–65. Andrews, R.J., Imberman, S.A.,
Lovenheim, M.F. & Stange, K.M. (2022). The
Returns to College Major Choice: Average and
Distributional Effects, Career Trajectories, and
Earnings Variability. NBER Working Paper w30331.
228 Minaya, V., Scott-Clayton, J. & Zhou, R.Y.
(2022). Heterogeneity in Labor Market Returns to
Master’s Degrees: Evidence from Ohio
(EdWorkingPaper: 22–629). Retrieved from
Annenberg Institute at Brown University: doi.org/
10.26300/akgd<5011.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
programs outside the United States.229
Variation in institutional and program
performance is a dominant feature of
postsecondary education in the United
States.230
The wide range of performance across
programs and institutions means that
prospective students face a daunting
information problem. The questions of
where to go and what to study are key
life choices with major consequences.
But without a way to discern the
differences between programs through
comparable, reliably reported measures
of quality, students may ultimately have
to rely on crude signals about the caliber
of education a school offers.
Recent evidence demonstrates that
information about colleges, delivered in
a timely and relevant way, can shape
students’ choices. Students at one large
school district were 20 percent more
likely to apply to colleges that have
information listed on a popular college
search tool, compared with colleges
whose information is not displayed on
the tool. A particularly important
finding of the study is that for Black,
Hispanic, and low-income students,
access to information about local public
four-year institutions increases overall
attendance at such institutions. This,
the author argues, suggests ‘‘that
students may have been unaware of
these nearby and inexpensive options
with high admissions rates.’’ 231
This evidence reveals both the power
of information to shape student choices
at critical moments in the decision
process and how a patchwork of
information about colleges may result in
students missing out on opportunities.
Given the variation in quality across
programs apparent in the research
evidence outlined above, these missed
opportunities can be quite costly.
Unfortunately, the general availability
of information does not always mean
students are able to find and use it.
Indeed, evidence on the initial impact of
the Department’s College Scorecard
college comparison tool found minimal
effects on students’ college choices,
with any possible effects concentrated
among the highest achieving
229 Hastings, J.S., Neilson, C.A. & Zimmerman,
S.D. (2013). Are Some Degrees Worth More than
Others? Evidence from College Admission Cutoffs
in Chile. NBER Working Paper w19241.
230 A recent overview can be found in Lovenheim,
M. & J. Smith (2023). Returns to Different
Postsecondary Investments: Institution Type,
Academic Programs, and Credentials. In Handbook
of the Economics of Education Volume 6, E.
Hanushek, L. Woessmann & S. Machin (eds). New
Holland.
231 Mulhern, Christine (2021). Changing College
Choices with Personalized Admissions Information
at Scale: Evidence on Naviance. Journal of Labor
Economics 39.1: 219–262.
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70115
students.232 But the contrast between
these two pieces of evidence, one where
information affects college choices and
one where it doesn’t, is instructive:
while students generally must seek out
the College Scorecard during their
college search process, the college
search tool from the first study delivers
information to students as they are
taking other steps through the tool, from
requesting transcripts and
recommendation letters to submitting
applications. It tailors that information
to the student, providing information
about where previous students from the
same high school have enrolled and
what their outcomes were. Accordingly,
there is some basis to believe that
personalized information delivered
directly to students at key decision
points from a credible source can have
an impact.
To that end, the transparency
component of these regulations attempts
to improve not only the quality of
information available to students (by
newly collecting key facts about
colleges), but also its salience,
relevance, and timing. Because this
information will be delivered directly to
students who are reviewing financial
aid packages from colleges and
programs which they are considering,
students would be likely to see the
information and understand its
credibility at a time when they are likely
to find it most useful for deciding if and
where to attend. Better still, the
information would not be ambiguous
when the message is most critical: if a
school is consistently failing to put
graduates on better financial footing,
students are informed of that fact before
they make a financial commitment.
The Department has concluded that
relying on just market-disciplining role
of information is not sufficient, and that
regulation beyond information
provision alone is warranted. This
conclusion is based on evidence,
reviewed below, that such regulations
could reduce the risk that students and
taxpayers spend money toward
programs that will leave them worse off.
Program performance is particularly
varied and concerning among the nondegree certificate programs offered by
all types of institutions, as well as at
proprietary degree programs. These are
the programs where the Department’s
concerns about quality are at their
height, especially given the narrower
career-focused nature of the credentials
offered in this part of the system.
232 Hurwitz, Michael & Smith, Jonathan (2018).
Student Responsiveness to Earnings Data in the
College Scorecard. Economic Inquiry 56.2: 1220–
1243.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70116
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Certificate programs are intended to
prepare students for specific vocations
and have, on average, positive returns
relative to not attending college at all.
Yet this aggregate performance masks
considerable variability: certificate
program outcomes vary greatly across
programs, States, fields of study, and
institutions,233 and even within the
same narrow field and within the same
institution.234 Qualitative research
suggests some of this outcome
difference stems from factors that
providers directly control, such as how
they engage with industry and
employers in program design and
whether they incorporate opportunities
for students to gain relevant workforce
experience during the program.235
Unfortunately, many of the most
popular certificate programs do not
result in returns on investment for
students who complete the program. An
analysis of programs included in the
2014 GE rule found that at 10 of the 15
certificate programs with the most
graduates, graduates had typical
earnings of $18,000 or less, well below
what a typical high school graduate
would earn.236
In addition to non-degree programs at
all types of institutions, the final rule
will subject for-profit degree programs
to the transparency framework in
§ 668.43 and subpart Q, and the GE
program-specific eligibility
requirements in subpart S. This
additional scrutiny, based in the
requirements of the HEA, is warranted
because for-profit programs have
demonstrated particularly poor
outcomes, as was shown in Tables 2.8
and 2.9 above. A large body of research
provides causal evidence on the many
ways students at for-profit colleges are
at an economic disadvantage upon
exiting their institutions. This research
base includes studies showing that
students who attend for-profit programs
are significantly more likely to suffer
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
233 Aspen
Institute (2015). From College to Jobs:
Making Sense of Labor Market Returns to Higher
Education. Washington, DC
(www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/
labormarketreturns/).
234 Much of the research is summarized in
Ositelu, M.O., McCann, C. & Laitinen, A. (2021).
The Short-Term Credential Landscape. New
America: Washington, DC (www.newamerica.org/
education-policy/repoerts/the-short-termcredentials-landscape).
235 Soliz, A. (2016). Preparing America’s Labor
Force: Workforce Development Programs in Public
Community Colleges. Brookings: Washington, DC
(www.brookings.edu/research/preparing-americaslabor-force-workforce-development-programs-inpublic-community-colleges/).
236 Aspen Institute (2015). From College to Jobs:
Making Sense of Labor Market Returns to Higher
Education. Washington, DC
(www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/
labormarketreturns).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
from poor employment prospects,237
low earnings,238 and loan repayment
difficulties.239 Students who transfer
into for-profit institutions instead of
public or nonprofit institutions face
significant wage penalties.240 In some
cases, researchers find similar earnings
or employment outcomes between forprofit and not-for-profit associate and
bachelor’s degree programs.241
However, students pay and borrow more
to attend for-profit degree programs, on
average.242 The result of higher debt
levels paired with lower or equivalent
earnings means students attending forprofit degree programs have a worse
overall return on investment. This
evidence of lackluster labor market
outcomes accords with the growing
evidence that many for-profit programs
may not be preparing students for
careers as effectively as comparable
programs at public institutions. A 2011
GAO report found that, for nine out of
10 licensing exams in the largest fields
of study, graduates of for-profit
institutions had lower passage rates
than graduates of public institutions.243
These comparatively poor outcomes
may not be surprising, as many forprofit institutions devote more resources
to recruiting and marketing than to
instruction or student support services.
A 2012 investigation by the U.S. Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions (Senate HELP Committee)
found that almost 23 percent of
revenues at proprietary institutions
were spent on marketing and recruiting
237 Deming, D.J., Yuchtman, N., Abulafi, A.,
Goldin, C. & Katz, L.F. (2016). The Value of
Postsecondary Credentials in the Labor Market: An
Experimental Study. American Economic Review,
106(3), 778–806.
238 Cellini, S.R. & Chaudhary, L. (2014). The
Labor Market Returns to a For-Profit College
Education. Economics of Education Review, 43,
125–140.
239 Armona, L., Chakrabarti, R. & Lovenheim,
M.F. (2022). Student Debt and Default: The Role of
For-Profit Colleges. Journal of Financial Economics,
144(1), 67–92.
240 Liu, V.Y.T. & Belfield, C. (2020). The Labor
Market Returns to For-Profit Higher Education:
Evidence for Transfer Students. Community College
Review, 48(2), 133–155.
241 Lang, K. & Weinstein, R. (2013). The Wage
Effects of Not-For-Profit and For-Profit
Certifications: Better Data, Somewhat Different
Results. Labour Economics, 24, 230–243.
242 Cellini, S.R. & Darolia, R. (2015). College Costs
and Financial Constraints. In Hershbein, B. &
Hollenbeck, K. (ed). Student Loans and the
Dynamics of Debt (137–174). W.E. Upjohn Institute
for Employment Research: Kalamazoo, MI. Cellini,
S.R. & Darolia, R. (2017). High Costs, Low
Resources, and Missing Information: Explaining
Student Borrowing in the For-Profit Sector. The
ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 671(1), 92–112.
243 Government Accountability Office (2011).
Postsecondary Education: Student Outcomes Vary
at For-Profit, Nonprofit, and Public Schools (GAO–
12–143).
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
but only 17 percent on instruction.244
The report further found that at many
institutions, the number of recruiters
greatly outnumbered the career services
and support services staff.
Particularly strong evidence comes
from a recent study that found that the
average undergraduate certificateseeking student that attended a forprofit institution did not experience any
earnings gains relative to the typical
worker in a matched sample of high
school graduates. They also had
significantly lower earnings gains than
students who attended certificate
programs in the same field of study at
public institutions.245 Furthermore, the
earnings gain for the average for-profit
certificate-seeking student was not
sufficient to compensate them for the
amount of student debt taken on to
attend the program.246 At the same time,
research also shows substantial
variation in earnings gains from title IV,
HEA-eligible undergraduate certificate
programs by field of study,247 with
students graduating from cosmetology
and personal services programs in all
sectors experiencing especially poor
outcomes.248
Consequences of Attending Low
Financial Value Programs
Attending a postsecondary education
or training program where the typical
student takes on debt that exceeds their
capacity to repay can cause substantial
harm to borrowers. For instance, high
debt may cause students to delay certain
milestones; research shows that high
levels of debt decreases students’ longterm probability of marriage.249 Being
overburdened by student loan payments
can also reduce the likelihood that
borrowers will invest in their future.
Research shows that when students
borrow more due to high tuition, they
are less likely to obtain a graduate
244 U.S. Senate, Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions Committee (July 30, 2012). For Profit
Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the
Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success.
Senate HELP Committee, July 30, 2012.
245 Cellini, S.R. & Turner, N. (2019). Gainfully
Employed? Assessing the Employment and
Earnings of For-Profit College Students using
Administrative Data. Journal of Human Resources,
54(2), 342–370.
246 Id.
247 Lang, K. & Weinstein, R. (2013). The Wage
Effects of Not-For-Profit and For-Profit
Certifications: Better Data, Somewhat Different
Results. Labour Economics, 24, 230–243.
248 Dadgar, M. & Trimble, M.J. (2015). Labor
Market Returns to Sub-Baccalaureate Credentials:
How Much Does a Community College Degree or
Certificate Pay? Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 37(4), 399–418.
249 Gicheva, D. (2016). Student Loans or
Marriage? A Look at the Highly Educated.
Economics of Education Review, 53, 207–2016.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
degree 250 and less likely to take out a
mortgage to purchase a home after
leaving college.251
Unmanageable debt can also have
adverse financial consequences for
borrowers, including default on their
student loans. For those who do not
complete a degree, more student debt
may raise the probability of
bankruptcy.252 Borrowers who default
on their loans face potentially serious
repercussions. Many aspects of
borrowers’ lives may be affected,
including their ability to sign up for
utilities, obtain insurance, or rent an
apartment.253 The Department reports
loans more than 90 days delinquent or
in default to the major national credit
bureaus, and being in default has been
shown to be correlated with a 50-to-90point drop in borrowers’ credit
scores.254 A defaulted loan can remain
on borrowers’ credit reports for up to
seven years and lead to higher costs that
make insurance, housing, and other
services and financial products less
affordable and, in some cases, harm
borrowers’ ability to get a job.255
Borrowers who default also lose access
to some repayment options and
flexibilities. At the same time, their full
balances are accelerated and become
due immediately, and borrowers
become subject to involuntary
collections such as administrative wage
garnishment and Treasury offset which
can result in the redirection of income
tax refunds toward the defaulted
loan.256
Research shows that borrowers who
attend for-profit institutions have higher
student loan default rates than students
with similar characteristics who attend
public institutions.257 Furthermore,
most of the rise in student loan default
rates from 2000 to 2011 can be traced to
increases in enrollment in for-profit
institutions and, to a lesser extent, twoyear public institutions.258
Low loan repayment also has
consequences for taxpayers. Calculating
the precise magnitude of these costs
would require decades of realized
repayment periods for millions of
borrowers. However, Table 2.10 shows
estimates of the share of disbursed loans
that will not be repaid based on
simulated debt and earnings trajectories
at each program in the 2022 PPD under
the income-driven repayment Saving on
a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan
announced in June 2023.259 These
estimates incorporate the subsidy
coming from the features of the
repayment plan itself (capped
payments, forgiveness), not accounting
for default or delinquency. Starting with
the median earnings and debt at each
program, the Department simulated
typical repayment trajectories for each
program with data available for both
measures.
Using U.S. Census Bureau (Census)
microdata on earnings and family
formation for a nationally representative
sample of individuals, the Department
70117
projected the likely repayment
experience of borrowers at each program
assuming all were enrolled in the SAVE
plan (which can be found at 88 FR
43820).260 Starting from the median
earnings level of each program, the
projections incorporate the estimated
earnings growth over the life course
through age sixty for individuals
starting from the same earnings level in
a given State. The projections also
include likely spousal earnings, student
debt, and family size of each borrower
(also derived from the Census data),
which makes it possible to calculate the
total amount repaid by borrowers under
each plan when paying in full each
month (even if that means making a
payment of $0). The simulation
incorporates different demographic and
income groups probabilistically due to
important non-linearities in plan
structure.
Table 2.10 shows that, among all
programs, students who attend
programs that fall below the debt-toearnings standard are consistently
projected to repay less on their loans, in
present value terms, than they
borrowed.261 This is true regardless of
whether a program is in the public,
private nonprofit, or proprietary sector.
The projected repayment ratio is even
lower for programs that only fail the EP
measure because at very low earnings
levels, students are expected to make
zero-dollar payments over extended
periods of time.
TABLE 2.10—PREDICTED RATIO OF DOLLARS REPAID TO DOLLARS BORROWED BY CONTROL AND PASSAGE STATUS
Predicted repayment
ratio under SAVE
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Public:
No D/E or EP data .........................................................................................................................................................
Pass ................................................................................................................................................................................
Fail D/E (regardless of EP) ............................................................................................................................................
Fail EP only ....................................................................................................................................................................
Private, Nonprofit:
No D/E or EP data .........................................................................................................................................................
250 Chakrabarti, R., Fos, V., Liberman, A. &
Yannelis, C. (2023). Tuition, Debt, and Human
Capital. The Review of Financial Studies, 36(4),
1667–1702.
251 Mezza, A., Ringo, D., Sherlund, S. & Sommer,
K. (2020). Student Loans and Homeownership.
Journal of Labor Economics, 38(1), 215–260.
252 Gicheva, D. & Thompson, J. (2015). The Effects
of Student Loans on Long-Term Household
Financial Stability. In Hershbein, B. & Hollenbeck,
K. (ed.). Student Loans and the Dynamics of Debt
(137–174). W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment
Research: Kalamazoo, MI.
253 Federal Student Aid. Student Loan
Delinquency and Default (studentaid.gov/manageloans/default).
254 Blagg, K. (2018). Underwater on Student Debt:
Understanding Consumer Credit and Student Loan
Default. Urban Institute Research Report.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
255 Elliott, D. & Granetz Lowitz, R. (2018). What
Is the Cost of Poor Credit? Urban Institute Report.
Corbae, D., Glover, A. & Chen, D. (2013). Can
Employer Credit Checks Create Poverty Traps? 2013
Meeting Papers, No. 875, Society for Economic
Dynamics.
256 Federal Student Aid. Student Loan
Delinquency and Default (studentaid.gov/manageloans/default).
257 Deming, D., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (2012). The
For-Profit Postsecondary School Sector: Nimble
Critters or Agile Predators? Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 26(1), 139–164. Hillman, N.W. (2014).
College on Credit: A Multilevel Analysis of Student
Loan Default. Review of Higher Education 37(2),
169–195.
258 Looney, A. & Yannelis, C. (2015). A Crisis in
Student Loans? How Changes in the Characteristics
of Borrowers and in the Institutions They Attended
Contributed to Rising Loan Defaults. Brookings
Papers on Economic Activity, 2, 1–89.
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
0.54
0.72
0.29
0.13
0.69
259 The White House (June 30, 2023). Fact Sheet:
President Biden Announces New Actions to
Provide Debt Relief and Support for Student Loan
Borrowers (www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
statements-releases/2023/06/30/fact-sheetpresident-biden-announces-new-actions-to-providedebt-relief-and-support-for-student-loanborrowers/).
260 These estimates of the subsidy rate are not
those used in the budget and do not factor in takeup. Rather, they show the predicted subsidy rates
under the assumption that all students are enrolled
in SAVE.
261 As explained in more detail later, the
Department computed D/E and EP metrics only for
those programs with 30 or more students who
completed the program during the applicable twoyear cohort period—that is, those programs that met
the minimum cohort size requirements.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70118
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.10—PREDICTED RATIO OF DOLLARS REPAID TO DOLLARS BORROWED BY CONTROL AND PASSAGE STATUS—
Continued
Predicted repayment
ratio under SAVE
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Pass ................................................................................................................................................................................
Fail D/E (regardless of EP) ............................................................................................................................................
Fail EP only ....................................................................................................................................................................
Proprietary:
No D/E or EP data .........................................................................................................................................................
Pass ................................................................................................................................................................................
Fail D/E (regardless of EP) ............................................................................................................................................
Fail EP only ....................................................................................................................................................................
Total:
No D/E or EP data .........................................................................................................................................................
Pass ................................................................................................................................................................................
Fail D/E (regardless of EP) ............................................................................................................................................
Fail EP only ....................................................................................................................................................................
Our analysis, provided in more detail
in ‘‘Analysis of the Regulations,’’ shows
that for many GE programs, the typical
graduate earns less than the typical
worker with only a high school diploma
or has debt payments that are higher
than is considered manageable given
typical earnings. As we show below,
high rates of student loan default are
especially common among GE programs
that are projected to fail either the D/E
rates or the earnings premium metric.
Furthermore, low earnings can cause
problems in aspects of a graduate’s
financial life beyond those related to
loan repayment. In 2019, US individuals
between ages 25 and 34 who had any
type of postsecondary credential
reported much higher rates of material
hardship if their annual income was
below the high school earnings
threshold, with those below the
threshold reporting being food insecure
and behind on bills at more than double
the rate of those with earnings above the
threshold.262
In light of the low earnings, high debt,
and student loan repayment difficulties
for students in some GE programs, the
Department has identified a risk that
students may be spending their time
and money and taking on Federal debt
to attend programs that do not provide
sufficient value to justify these costs.
While even very good programs will
have some students who struggle to
obtain employment or repay their
student loans, the metrics identify
programs where the majority of students
experience adverse financial outcomes
upon completion.
262 These findings come from ED’s analysis of the
2019 Survey of Income and Program Participation.
This analysis compares individuals with annual
income below the 2019 U.S. National median
income for individuals with a high school diploma
aged 25–34 who had positive earnings or reported
looking for work in the previous year, according to
the Census Bureau’s ACS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Although enrollment in for-profit and
sub-baccalaureate programs has
declined following the Great Recession,
past patterns suggest that future
economic downturns could reverse this
trend. For-profit institutions have
shown to be more responsive than
public and nonprofit institutions to
changes in economic conditions 263 and
during the COVID–19 pandemic, it was
the only sector to see increases in
student enrollment.264 Additionally,
research shows that reductions in State
and local funding for public higher
education institutions tend to shift
college students into the for-profit
sector.265 During economic downturns,
this response is especially relevant since
State and local funding is procyclical,
falling during recessions even as student
demand is increasing.266
For-profit institutions that participate
in title IV, HEA programs are also more
reliant on Federal student aid than
public and nonprofit institutions. In
recent years, around 70 percent of
revenue received by for-profit
institutions came from Pell grants and
263 Deming, D., Goldin, C. & Katz, L. (2012). The
For-Profit Postsecondary School Sector: Nimble
Critters or Agile Predators? Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 26(1), 139–164. Gilpin, G.A.,
Saunders, J. & Stoddard, C. (2015). Why Has ForProfit Colleges’ Share of Higher Education
Expanded So Rapidly? Estimating the
Responsiveness to Labor Market Changes.
Economics of Education Review, 45, 53–63.
264 Cellini, S.R. (2020). The Alarming Rise in ForProfit College Enrollment. Brookings Institution:
Washington, DC.
265 Cellini, S.R. (2009). Crowded Colleges and
College Crowd-Out: The Impact of Public Subsidies
on the Two-Year College Market. American
Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 1(2), 1–30.
Goodman, S. & Volz, A.H. (2020). Attendance
Spillovers between Public and For-Profit Colleges:
Evidence from Statewide Variation in
Appropriations for Higher Education. Education
Finance and Policy, 15(3), 428–456.
266 Ma, J. & Pender, M. (2022). Trends in College
Pricing and Student Aid 2022. College Board: New
York.
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
0.96
0.36
0.19
0.43
0.80
0.25
0.08
0.58
0.77
0.29
0.12
Federal student loans.267 For-profit
institutions also have substantially
higher tuition than public institutions
offering similar degrees. In recent years,
average for-profit tuition and fees
charged by two-year for-profit
institutions were over 4 times the
average tuition and fees charged by
community colleges.268 Research
suggests that Federal student aid
supports for-profit expansions and
higher prices.269 One study finds that
for-profit programs in institutions that
participate in title IV, HEA programs
charge tuition that is approximately 80
percent higher than tuition charged by
programs in the same field and with
similar outcomes in nonparticipating
for-profit institutions.270
A commonly expressed concern with
past GE regulations is that if programs
lose title IV, HEA aid eligibility due to
the rule’s sanctions this might result in
a loss of education options for
disadvantaged students. Past research
has shown that for-profit institutions do
indeed disproportionately enroll
students with barriers to postsecondary
access—low-income, non-white, and
older students, as well as students who
are veterans, single parents, or have a
267 Cellini, S. & Koedel, K. (2017). The Case for
Limiting Federal Student Aid to For-Profit Colleges.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 36(4),
934–942.
268 NCES (2022). Digest of Education Statistics
(Table 330.10) (available at nces.ed.gov/programs/
digest/d21/tables/dt21_330.10.asp).
269 Cellini, S.R. (2010). Financial Aid and ForProfit Colleges: Does Aid Encourage Entry? Journal
of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(3), 526–
552. Lau, C.V. (2014). The Incidence of Federal
Subsidies in For-Profit Higher Education.
Unpublished manuscript. Northwestern University:
Evanston, IL.
270 Cellini, S.R. & Goldin, C. (2014). Does Federal
Student Aid Raise Tuition? New Evidence on ForProfit Colleges. American Economic Journal:
Economic Policy, 6(4), 174–206.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
General Equivalency Degree.271
Evidence from prior research and our
analyses presented in this RIA,
however, suggests that sanctioning lowperforming programs would not reduce
access to good quality programs.
For example, in the 1990s, sanctions
related to high cohort default rates led
a large number of for-profit institutions
to close, significantly reducing
enrollment in this sector.272 Yet, these
actions did not reduce access to higher
education. Instead, a large share of
students who would have attended a
sanctioned for-profit institution instead
enrolled in local open access public
institutions and, as a result, took on less
student debt and were less likely to
default.273 Similar conclusions were
reached in recent studies of students
who experienced program closures.274
Better evidence is now available on the
enrollment outcomes of students who
would otherwise attend sanctioned or
closed schools than when the 2014 GE
70119
Rule was considered. Further, as shown
in the RIA section ‘‘Alternative Options
Exist for Students to Enroll in HighValue Programs,’’ most students who
enroll in a GE program projected to fail
the D/E rates or EP measure have better
options available to them at the same or
nearby institutions, and the graduates of
these programs bend to have higher
earnings and less debt.
3. Summary of Comments and Changes
From the NPRM
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF KEY CHANGES IN THE FINAL REGULATIONS
Provision
Regulatory section
Date, Extent, and Consequence of Eligibility.
Definitions .............................................
§ 600.10(c) ......................
Repositioning § 600.10(c)(1)(v) to § 600.10(c)(3), with a slight rewording for additional clarity.
§ 668.2 ............................
Updating definition of ‘‘cohort period’’ to extend the earnings measurement period for qualifying
graduate programs beyond medical and dental programs.
Updating definition of ‘‘earnings threshold’’ to specifically reference Census Bureau data.
Updating definition of ‘‘earnings threshold’’ to clarify that national earnings are used if fewer than
50 percent of the students in the program come from the State where the institution is located, rather than where the students are located while enrolled.
Updating definition of Institutional Grants and Scholarships for clarity.
Adding a new definition of ‘‘qualifying graduate program’’ to establish an extended earnings
measurement period for certain graduate programs beyond medical and dental programs.
Adding a new definition of ‘‘substantially similar program.’’
Removing references to ‘‘title IV loan’’ and uses ‘‘Direct Loan Program loan’’ that is already defined.
Specifying that the program information website requirements and the acknowledgment requirements are not applicable until July 1, 2026.
Institutional and Programmatic Information and Student Acknowledgments.
Institutional and Programmatic Information.
§§ 668.43(d), 668.407,
and 668.605.
Financial Value Transparency Scope
and Purpose.
§ 668.401 ........................
Process for Obtaining Data and Calculating D/E Rates and Earnings Premium Measure.
Student Acknowledgments ...................
§ 668.405(b)(1)(iii) ..........
§ 668.43(a)(5)(v) and
(d)(1).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Reporting Requirements .......................
§ 668.407(a)(1), (b)(3),
(c), and (d).
§ 668.408(a) and (c) .......
271 Deming, D., Goldin, C. & Katz, L. (2012). The
For-Profit Postsecondary School Sector: Nimble
Critters or Agile Predators? Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 26(1), 139–164. Cellini, S.R. & Darolia,
R. (2015). College Costs and Financial Constraints.
In Hershbein, B. & Hollenbeck, K. (ed). Student
Loans and the Dynamics of Debt (137–174). W.E.
Upjohn Institute for Employment Research:
Kalamazoo, MI.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Description of change from NPRM
Removing the requirement for an institution to post a list of States where a program meets or
does not meet applicable State licensure requirements, in expectation that this provision will
be published under a separate final rule.
Revising § 668.43(d) to refer to the Department’s website as the ‘‘program information website’’
rather than the ‘‘disclosure website.’’ We have also made conforming revisions to
§ 668.605(c)(2) and (3) by changing the reference from ‘‘disclosure website’’ to ‘‘program information website.
Revising the list of information items to include a list of the minimum elements that the Secretary must include on the program information website and an example list of supplemental
information the Secretary may additionally include.
Removing the link to the College Navigator website from the list of required information items.
Adding § 668.401(b)(1) to exempt institutions located in U.S. Territories or the freely associated
states from the provisions of subpart Q other than reporting requirements under § 668.408,
noting that the informational requirements at § 668.43 also continue to apply.
Adding § 668.401(b)(2) to exempt from subpart Q institutions that offered no groups of substantially similar programs with 30 or more completers over the four most recently completed
award years.
Revising to clarify that an institution can correct the information about the students on the
completer list or provide evidence showing that a student should be included or removed from
the list no later than 60 days after the date the Secretary provides the list to the institution.
Revising to exempt undergraduate degree programs from the acknowledgment requirements.
Revising to require a student in high-debt-burden non-GE program to provide an acknowledgment before the institution enters into an agreement to enroll the student, rather than before
the institution may disburse title IV, HEA funds.
Revising to clarify that the Department monitors an institution’s compliance with the student acknowledgment requirements through audits, program reviews, or other investigations.
Revising to clarify that the acknowledgment requirements apply annually if the program has failing rates for the most recent year calculated, and continue to apply for three years if no new
rates are calculated.
Revising to specify that the provision of an acknowledgement will not be considered ‘‘dispositive’’ evidence in any borrower defense claim.
Revising to limit the reporting requirements to institutions offering any program with at least 30
total completers during the four most recently completed award years.
Expanding the transitional reporting and rates option from non-GE programs to all programs.
272 Darolia, R. (2013). Integrity Versus Access?
The Effect of Federal Financial Aid Availability on
Postsecondary Enrollment. Journal of Public
Economics, 106, 101–114.
273 Cellini, S.R., Darolia, R. & Turner, L.J. (2020).
Where Do Students Go When For-Profit Colleges
Lose Federal Aid? American Economic Journal:
Economic Policy, 12(2), 46–83.
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
274 See Government Accountability Office (2022).
College Closures: Education Should Improve
Outreach to Borrowers about Loan Discharges
(GAO–22–104403) (www.gao.gov/products/gao-22104403). State Higher Ed. Executive Officers Ass’n
(2022). More than 100,000 Students Experienced an
Abrupt Campus Closure Between July 2004 and
June 2020 (sheeo.org/more-than-100000-studentsexperienced-an-abrupt-campus-closure-betweenjuly-2004-and-june-2020).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70120
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF KEY CHANGES IN THE FINAL REGULATIONS—Continued
Provision
Regulatory section
Gainful Employment Scope and Purpose.
§ 668.601(b) ....................
Gainful Employment Criteria ................
§ 668.602(d) and (g) .......
Student Warnings .................................
§ 668.605(h) ....................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
General
Comments: One commenter
questioned why the Department’s RIA
data were less complete for nonprofit
institutions than similarly provided data
under the 2014 GE rules. The
commenter also wondered what data
motivated the extra regulation of forprofit institutions relative to nonprofit
schools.
Discussion: The commenter did not
specify how they determined that the
data for nonprofit institutions were less
complete in the NPRM RIA relative to
the 2014 rule. Nonetheless, the
Department provided the available data,
subject to privacy standards as part of
the NPRM. Moreover, the additional
scrutiny of for-profit institutions is
warranted because for-profit programs
have demonstrated particularly poor
outcomes. A large body of research
provides causal evidence on the many
ways students at for-profit institutions
are economically disadvantaged upon
exiting their institutions, as we
described in the ‘‘Need for Regulatory
Action’’ section above.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters stated
that the NPRM RIA’s comparison of
failure rates of public and nonprofit
certificate programs to those of
proprietary programs was misleading
because many public and nonprofit
programs are too small to have sufficient
data to calculate metrics.
Discussion: Under the rule, only
programs with sufficient data will be
subject to failure. Therefore, the NPRM
RIA contained an accurate description
of the share of programs that fail.
Changes: None.
Benefits and Costs—RIA
Comments: One commenter
questioned whether the benefits of the
regulations would exceed the costs,
claiming that the in the NPRM, the
Department did not provide specific
data and evidence about net benefits,
did not consider negative impacts on
students and institutions, provided an
incomplete assessment of costs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Description of change from NPRM
Clarifying that the transitional reporting and rates option applies for the first six years the regulation is in effect.
Adding § 668.601(b)(1) to exempt institutions located U.S. Territories or the freely associated
states from the provisions of subpart S.
Adding § 668.601(b)(2) to exempt from subpart S institutions that offered no groups of substantially similar programs with 30 or more completers over the four most recently completed
award years.
Revising to clarify that in determining a program’s eligibility, the Secretary disregards any failing
D/E rates and earnings premiums that were calculated more than five calculation years prior.
Revising to specify that the provision of a warning will not be considered ‘‘dispositive’’ evidence
in any borrower defense claim.
associated with implementing the
regulations, and did not consider the
perspectives of students, institutions,
and other stakeholders who would be
directly affected by the regulation.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
that the NPRM failed to consider these
elements. We included extensive
discussion of potential impacts on
students and institutions (for example,
see the ‘‘Discussion of Costs, Benefits,
and Transfers’’ in the NPRM). The
NPRM also included a robust discussion
of the costs associated with
implementing the regulations, including
discussion of costs associated with the
reporting, disclosure, and
acknowledgment requirements (see the
‘‘Costs to Institutions’’ section of the
NPRM). In addition, the NPRM was
issued after a negotiated rulemaking
process in which a diverse set of
stakeholders participated, including
representatives from accrediting
agencies, civil rights organizations,
consumer advocacy groups, financial
aid administrators, institutions of higher
education (public four-year and twoyear, minority-serving, proprietary,
private nonprofit), State attorneys
general, and U.S. military service
groups.
Changes: None.
Data Used in This RIA
Comments: Several commenters noted
that the NPRM RIA considered
information that differed in certain ways
from the data measurement that the
Department proposed to use in the rule,
including: that the RIA analyzed
programs at the 4-digit CIP code level;
used 2010 CIP codes; used data from
earlier cohorts; used State-level earnings
thresholds even in cases when more
than half of a program’s students are
out-of-State, did not evaluate medical
professional programs that have postgraduation residency requirements, and
did not provide 4-year completer cohort
data. Some commenters further noted
that the data used to calculate D/E in the
NPRM RIA did not include private
education loan data or cap the loan debt
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
by an amount equivalent to cost of
attendance less institutional grants.
Some of these commenters claimed that
this omission particularly harms
cosmetology schools or that the NPRM
RIA does not offer institutions a way to
fully understand the potential impact of
the regulations on their programs.
Discussion: We used the best available
data in the NPRM RIA and in the RIA
for the final rule to analyze the
implications of the rule, and in these,
and other comments, commenters did
not suggest alternative sources of data
that could be used to evaluate the rule
proposed in the NPRM or in the final
rule. Additionally, we described in
detail the differences between data used
for modeling and data used in the final
rule, and when possible, included a
discussion of expected differences in
coverage between the NPRM RIA and
the final rule. For example, the NPRM
RIA estimated that for GE programs, an
additional 8 percent of enrollment and
11 percent of programs would likely
have metrics computed using a 4-year
completer cohort but did not have
metrics computed using a 2-year
completer cohort. For eligible non-GE
programs, the use of four-year cohort
rates likely increases coverage rates of
enrollment and programs by 13 and 15
percent, respectively.275 To the extent
that commenters seek perfect data that
perfectly predict the effects of the rule,
that is neither feasible nor the
applicable legal standard. Further,
institutions have ready access to data
that would allow them to identify debt
levels for students in their programs,
and it is not unreasonable to expect
institutions to have a sense of students’
earnings.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
their appreciation for providing analysis
of programs in 2-year cohorts, but a few
commenters were concerned about the
lack of information related to 4-year
cohorts. A specific concern of the latter/
275 See ‘‘Data Used in this RIA’’ and ‘‘Analysis of
Data Coverage’’ from the NPRM.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
these commenter(s) was that the RIA in
the NPRM might have understated the
number of programs that might be
affected by the regulations.
Discussion: The data we used in the
NPRM RIA was the best data available
to analyze the implications of the rule.
We included an estimate in the NPRM
RIA of the share of enrollment in
programs that would be covered under
the four-year cohort approach (see, for
example, Table 3.2 of the NPRM).
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter claimed
that they were unable to recreate or
identify the source data for data used in
the NPRM RIA. A few other commenters
claimed that the PPD 2022 differed from
other data, such as the College
Scorecard or previously released data.
Discussion: We fulsomely
documented the data used in the NPRM
RIA analysis and in supplementary
documentation posted on the
Department’s website and
regulations.gov. Under the ‘‘Data Used
in this RIA’’ section of the NPRM, the
RIA explains that the data used nonpublic records contained in Department
administrative systems, earnings data
produced by the U.S. Treasury, and data
from the Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS),
Postsecondary Education Participants
System (PEPS), and the College
Scorecard, and further explained, in the
following pages, how we constructed
each data field. Further, the Data
Codebook and Description provide
detailed descriptions of the exact source
of each variable and differences from
previously released data.276
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter indicated
that the 2022 PPD data released along
with the NPRM does not match with
their college’s internal data. The
commenter further conducted a survey
of some graduates in one their programs
and among respondents, found higher
median earnings than was included in
the PPD. Further, the commenter
claimed that the 2022 PPD included
more completers than the college’s
internal data and had a different number
of bachelor’s programs.
Discussion: The Department used
administrative IRS data from tax filings,
which we believe to be the most
accurate source of data on student
earnings available. While graduate
surveys can provide useful information
about student outcomes, such data can
be subject to response bias (and that is
276 See www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/
hearulemaking/2021/nprm-2022ppddescription.pdf and www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/
reg/hearulemaking/2021/nprm-2022ppdcodebook.xlsx.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
possible in this case where only a
portion of borrowers volunteered selfreported earnings information). Related
to accuracy of completers and programs,
the rule allows institutions to review
and correct completer lists to review for
and promote accuracy (see § 668.405).
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters asserted,
for different reasons, that the PPD was
in some way flawed. One commenter
noted that only a fraction of the
programs in the PPD file include data,
and that this is too small a fraction of
programs nationwide to analyze and use
for the basis of a rule.
The other commenter noted that the
PPD file contains fewer programs than
the equivalent College Scorecard
program file, even though they measure
the same cohort. The same commenter
opined that the PPD was not a valid
source of data, because for programs
that exist in both data sources, the
earnings data are substantially different.
Discussion: The Department
understands that not all programs
include data that can be analyzed for the
purposes of the final rule. However, we
believe that the degree to which student
enrollment concentrates in larger
programs mitigates the concerns noted
by the commenter. The number of
students who enroll in programs large
enough to produce data is the more
relevant measure of the rule’s
effectiveness, in our opinion. As shown
in the RIA, we estimate that the majority
of enrolled students, approximately 83
percent, are enrolled in programs that
would be covered by existing data.
The Department is aware of the
differences in how the PPD and the
College Scorecard universes of programs
and data are constructed. As noted in
the rule and in the RIA, the coverage of
programs is different, and the two
datasets should not be expected to be
the same. A primary reason why the
PPD has fewer programs is that the
sample frame is different: the PPD is
limited to programs with completers in
the 2015–2017 academic years and who
are currently in operation based on the
Postsecondary Education Participation
System (PEPS) data as of March 25,
2022.
The methodology for calculating
median debt differ in the two data
sources because in the College
Scorecard, median debt is measured
only among borrowers, whereas in the
PPD programs that have completers who
graduate with debt have those students’
lack of debt factored into their median
debt amounts.
The Department disputes the fact that
the earnings measures differ
substantially between the College
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70121
Scorecard and the PPD. The same data
file forms the basis of both the
Scorecard and the PPD earnings
measures for 3-year earnings among
students who are not enrolled. It is
worth noting that the not-enrolled
population that forms the basis of the 3year program-level measure in the
Scorecard is a different sample of
students than the 1- and 4-year
measures at the program level, which
are calculated only for the working and
not-enrolled population of graduates
from each program. This may explain
any confusion commenters have about
comparability of measures, as
commenters noted inconsistency across
earnings horizons (arguing that the data
showed an implausible jump from the
three- to four-year measurement period.
This disparity results from different
measurement populations and is not a
sign of mismeasurement. When
examining program earnings for the
same cohorts and measurement periods
for the programs present in both
samples, they differ only by a small
inflation adjustment that serves to
construct the GE measures properly to
best approximate the true structure of
the rule when implemented. For reasons
explained in the NPRM, median debt in
the rule (and hence the PPD) is based on
all graduates regardless of whether they
borrow. Similarly, median earnings are
measured using all graduates regardless
of whether they are employed.
Changes: None.
4. Analysis of the Financial Value
Transparency and GE Regulations
This section presents a detailed
analysis of the likely consequences of
the Financial Value Transparency and
GE provisions of the final regulations.
Methodology
Data Used in This RIA
This section describes the data
referenced in this regulatory impact
analysis. To generate information on the
performance of different postsecondary
programs offered in different higher
education sectors, the Department relied
on data on the program enrollment,
demographic characteristics, borrowing
levels, post-completion earnings, and
borrower outcomes of students who
received title IV, HEA aid for their
studies. The Department produced
program performance information, using
measures based on the typical debt
levels and post-enrollment earnings of
program completers, from non-public
records contained in the administrative
systems the Department uses to
administer the title IV, HEA programs
along with earnings data produced by
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70122
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
the U.S. Treasury. This performance
information was supplemented with
information from publicly available
sources including the Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS), Postsecondary Education
Participants System (PEPS), and the
College Scorecard. The data used for the
State earnings thresholds come from the
Census Bureau’s 2019 ACS, while
statistics about the price level used to
adjust for inflation come from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer
Price Index. This section describes the
data used to produce this program
performance information and notes
several differences from the measures
used for this purpose and the D/E rates
and earning premium measures set forth
in the rule, as well as differences from
the data disseminated during negotiated
rulemaking. The data described below
are referred to as the ‘‘2022 Program
Performance Data (2022 PPD),’’ where
2022 refers to the year the programs
were indicated as active. The data are
unchanged from that used in the NPRM
RIA, and those data were released with
the NPRM.277
The final rule relies on non-public
measures of the cumulative borrowing
and post-completion earnings of
federally aided title IV, HEA students,
including both grant and loan
recipients. The Department has
information on all title IV, HEA grant
and loan recipients at all institutions
participating in the title IV, HEA
programs, including the identity of the
specific programs in which students are
enrolled and whether students complete
the program. This information is stored
in the National Student Loan Data
System (NSLDS), maintained by the
Department’s Office of Federal Student
Aid (FSA).
277 To protect student privacy, we applied certain
protocols to the publicly released 2022 PPD and
therefore that dataset differs somewhat from the
2022 PPD analyzed in this RIA. Such protocols
include omitting the values of variables derived
from fewer than 30 students. For instance, the title
IV enrollment in programs with fewer than 30
students is used to determine the number and share
of enrollment in GE programs in this RIA, while the
exact program-level enrollment of such programs is
omitted in the public 2022 PPD. The privacy
protocols are described in the data documentation
accompanying the NPRM. The Department would
not have reached different conclusions on the
impact of the regulation or on the proposed rules
if we had instead relied on the privacy-protective
dataset, though the Department views analysis
based on the 2022 PPD and described in this
regulation to provide a more precise representation
of such impact. We view the differences in the
analyses as substantively minor for purposes of this
rulemaking. As described in the final rule,
institutions that do not have enough students
completing over the most recent four award years
to permit the Department to calculate metrics will
be exempt—these programs are listed as ‘‘no data’’
in the public PPD.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Using this enrollment and completion
information, in conjunction with nonpublic student loan information also
stored in NSLDS, and earnings
information obtained from Treasury, the
Department calculated annual and
discretionary debt-to-earnings (D/E)
ratios, or rates, for all title IV, HEA
programs. The Department also
calculated the median earnings of high
school graduates aged 25 to 34 in the
labor force in the State where the
program is located using public data,
which is referred to as the Earnings
Threshold (ET). This ET is compared to
a program’s graduates’ annual earnings
to determine the Earnings Premium
(EP), the extent to which a programs’
graduates earn more than the typical
high school graduate in the same State.
The methodology that was used to
calculate D/E rates, the ET, and the EP
is described in further detail below. In
addition to the D/E rates and earnings
data, we also calculated informational
outcome measures, including programlevel cohort default rates, to evaluate the
likely consequences of the final rule.
In our analysis, we identify a program
by a unique combination consisting of
the first six digits of its institution’s
Office of Postsecondary Education
Identification (OPEID) number, also
referred to as the six-digit OPEID, the
program’s 2010 Classification of
Instructional Programs (CIP) code, and
the program’s credential level. The
terms OPEID number, CIP code, and
credential level are defined below.
Throughout, we distinguish ‘‘GE
Programs’’ from those that are not
subject to the GE provisions of the final
rule, referred to as ‘‘non-GE Programs.’’
The 2022 PPD includes information for
155,582 programs that account for more
than 19 million title IV, HEA
enrollments annually in award years
2016 and 2017. This includes 2,931,000
enrollments in 32,058 GE Programs
(certificate programs at all institution
types, and degree programs at
proprietary institutions) and 16,337,000
enrollments in 123,524 non-GE
Programs (degree programs at public
and private not-for-profit institutions).
We calculated the performance
measures in the 2022 PPD for all
programs based on the debt and
earnings of the cohort of students who
both received title IV, HEA program
funds, including Federal student loans
and Pell grants, and completed
programs during an applicable two-year
cohort period. Consistent with the final
rule, students who do not complete
their program are not included in the
calculation of the metrics. The annual
loan payment component of the debt-toearnings formulas for the 2022 PPD D/
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E rates was calculated for each program
using student loan information from
NSLDS for students who completed
their program in award years 2016 or
2017 (i.e., between July 1, 2015, and
June 30, 2017—we refer to this group as
the 16/17 completer cohort). The
earnings components of the rates were
calculated for each program using
information obtained from Treasury for
students who completed between July 1,
2014, and June 30, 2016 (the 15/16
completer cohort), whose earnings were
measured in calendar years 2018 and
2019.
Programs were excluded from the
2022 PPD if they were operated by an
institution that was not currently active
in the Department’s PEPS system as of
March 25, 2022, if the program did not
have a valid credential type, or if the
program did not have title IV, HEA
completers in both the 15/16 and 16/17
completer cohorts.
Consistent with the regulations, the
Department computed D/E and EP
metrics in the 2022 PPD only for nonexempted programs with 30 or more
students who completed the program
during the applicable two-year cohort
period—that is, those programs that met
the minimum cohort size requirements.
A detailed analysis of the likely
coverage rate under the rule and of the
number and characteristics of programs
that met the minimum size in the 2022
PPD is included in ‘‘Analysis of Data
Coverage’’ below.
We determined, under the provisions
in the final regulations for the D/E rates
and EP measures, whether each program
would ‘‘Pass D/E,’’ ‘‘Fail D/E,’’ ‘‘Pass
EP,’’ and ‘‘Fail EP’’ based on its 2022
PPD results, or ‘‘No data’’ if it did not
meet the cohort size requirement, was
located in Puerto Rico, U.S. Territories
and freely associated states, or was a
program for which we do not have data
because the program has postgraduation residency requirements such
that it is evaluated based on a longer
earnings periods.278 These programspecific outcomes are then aggregated to
determine the fraction of programs that
pass or fail either metric or have
insufficient data, as well as the
enrollment in such programs.
• Pass D/E: Programs with an annual
D/E earnings rate less than or equal to
8 percent OR a discretionary D/E
earnings rate less than or equal to 20
percent.
278 This is a simplification. Under the regulation,
a ‘‘no data’’ year is not considered passing when
determining eligibility for GE programs based on
two out of three years. For non-GE programs,
passing with data and without data are treated the
same for the purposes of the warnings.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
• Fail D/E: Programs with an annual
D/E earnings rate over 8 percent AND a
discretionary D/E earnings rate over 20
percent.
• Pass EP: Programs with median
annual earnings greater than the median
earnings among high school graduates
aged 25 to 34 in the labor force in the
State in which the program is located.
• Fail EP: Programs with median
annual earnings less than or equal to the
median earnings among high school
graduates aged 25 to 34 in the labor
force in the State in which the program
is located.
• No data: Programs that had fewer
than 30 students in the two-year
completer cohorts such that earnings
and debt levels could not be
determined; exempted programs from
Puerto Rico, U.S. Territories and freely
associated states; or programs with
longer earnings periods due to postgraduation residency requirements.
Under the final regulations, a GE
program will become ineligible for title
IV, HEA program funds if it fails the D/
E rates measure for two out of three
consecutive years or fails the EP
measure for two out of three consecutive
years. GE programs will be required to
provide warnings in any year in which
the program could lose eligibility based
on the next D/E rates or earnings
premium measure calculated by the
Department. Students at such programs
would be required to acknowledge
having seen the warning and
information about debt and earnings
before receiving title IV, HEA funds.
Eligible programs (excepting
undergraduate degree programs) not
meeting the D/E standards would need
to have students acknowledge viewing
this information before students sign
enrollment agreements. These
acknowledgment requirements will
apply until the program passes the D/E
measure, or for three years from the last
published rate, whichever is earlier.
The Department analyzed the
estimated impact of the final regulations
on GE and non-GE programs using the
following data elements defined below:
• Enrollment: Number of students
receiving title IV, HEA program funds
for enrollment in a program. To estimate
enrollment, we used the count of
students receiving title IV, HEA program
funds, averaged over award years 2016
and 2017. Since students may be
enrolled in multiple programs during an
award year, aggregate enrollment across
programs will be greater than the
unduplicated number of students.
• OPEID: Identification number
issued by the Department that identifies
each postsecondary educational
institution (institution) that participates
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
in the Federal student financial
assistance programs authorized under
title IV of the HEA.
• CIP code: Identification code from
the Department’s National Center for
Education Statistics’ (NCES)
Classification of Instructional Programs,
which is a taxonomy of instructional
program classifications and descriptions
that identifies instructional program
specialties within educational
institutions. The rule will define
programs using six-digit CIP codes, but
due to data limitations, the statistics
used in this RIA are measured using
four-digit codes to identify programs.279
We used the 2010 CIP code instead of
the 2020 codes to align with the
completer cohorts used in this analysis.
• Control: The control designation for
a program’s institution—public, private
nonprofit, private for-profit
(proprietary), foreign nonprofit, and
foreign for-profit—using PEPS control
data as of March 25, 2022.
• Credential level: A program’s
credential level—undergraduate
certificate, associate degree, bachelor’s
degree, post-baccalaureate certificate,
master’s degree, doctoral degree, first
professional degree, or post-graduate
certificate.
• Institution predominant degree: The
type designation for a program’s
institution which is based on the
predominant degree the institution
awarded in IPEDS and reported in the
College Scorecard: less than 2 years, 2
years, or 4 years or more.
• State: Programs are assigned to a
U.S. State, DC, or territory based on the
State associated with the main
institution.
The information contained in the
2022 PDD and used in the analysis
necessarily differs from what will be
used to evaluate programs under the
final rule in a few ways due to certain
information not being currently
collected in the same form as it would
under the final rule. These include:
• 4-digit CIP code is used to define
programs in the 2022 PPD, rather than
6-digit CIP code. Program earnings are
not currently collected at the 6-digit CIP
code level, but will be under the final
rule. Furthermore, the 2022 PPD use
2010 CIP codes to align with the
completer cohorts used in the analysis,
279 In many cases the loss of information from
conducting analysis at a four- rather than six-digit
CIP code is minimal. According to the Technical
Documentation: College Scorecard Data by Field of
Study, 70 percent of credentials conferred were in
four-digit CIP categories that had only one six-digit
category with completers at an institution. The 2015
official GE rates can be used to examine the extent
of variation in program debt and earnings outcomes
across 6-digit CIP programs within the same
credential level and institution.
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70123
but programs will be defined using the
2020 CIP codes under the final rule;
• Unlike the final rule, the total loan
debt associated with each student is not
capped at an amount equivalent to the
program’s tuition, fees, books, and
supplies in the 2022 PPD, nor does debt
include institutional and other private
debt. Doing so requires additional
institutional reporting of relevant data
items not currently available to the
Department. In the 2014 Prior Rule,
using information reported by
institutions, the tuition and fees cap was
applied to approximately 15 percent of
student records for the 2008–2009 2012
D/E rates cohort, though this does not
indicate the share of programs whose
median debt would be altered by the
cap.
• D/E rates using earnings levels
measured in calendar years 2018 and
2019 would ideally use debt levels
measured for completers in 2015 and
2016. Since program level enrollment
data are more accurate for completers
starting in 2016, we use completers in
2016 and 2017 to measure debt. We
measure median debt levels and assume
completers in the 2015 and 2016 cohorts
would have had total borrowing that
was the same in real terms (i.e., we use
the CPI to adjust their borrowing levels
to estimate what the earlier cohort
would have borrowed in nominal
terms). This use of one cohort to
measure earnings outcomes and another
to measure debt necessarily reduces the
estimated coverage in the 2022 PPD to
a lower level than will be experienced
in practice, as we describe in more
detail below. Finally, the methodology
used to assign borrowing to particular
programs in instances where a borrower
may be enrolled in multiple programs is
different in the 2022 PPD than the
methodology that would be used in the
final rule (which is the same as that
used in the 2014 Prior Rule);
• Medical and dental professional
programs, and graduate mental health
programs that lead to licensure, are not
evaluated because earnings six years
after completion are not available. The
earnings and debt levels of these
programs are set to missing and not
included in the tabulations presented
here;
• 150 percent of the Federal Poverty
Guideline is used to define the ET for
institutions in foreign institutions in the
2022 PPD, rather than a national ET;
• The final rule will use a national ET
if more than half of a program’s students
are out-of-state, but the 2022 PPD uses
an ET determined by the State an
institution is located;
• Programs at institutions that have
merged with other institutions since
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70124
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
2017 are excluded, but these programs’
enrollment will naturally be
incorporated into the merged institution
when the final rule goes into effect.
• Under the final rule, if the two-year
completer cohort has too few students to
publish debt and earnings outcomes, but
the four-year completer cohort has a
sufficient number of students, then debt
and earnings outcomes would be
calculated for the four-year completer
cohort. This was not possible for the
2022 PPD, so some programs with no
data in our analysis would have data to
evaluate performance under the rule.
The 2022 PPD also differ from those
published in the Negotiated Rulemaking
data file in several ways. The universe
of programs in the previously published
Negotiated Rulemaking data file were
based, in part, on the College Scorecard
universe which included programs as
they are reported to IPEDS, but not
necessarily to NSLDS. IPEDS is a
survey, so institutions may report
programs (degrees granted by credential
level and CIP code) differently in IPEDS
than is reflected in NSLDS. To reflect
the impact of the rule more accurately,
the universe of the 2022 PPD is based
instead on NSLDS records because
NSLDS captures programs as reflected
in the data systems used to administer
title IV, HEA aid. Nonetheless, the 2022
PPD accounts for the same loan volume
reflected in the Negotiated Rulemaking
data file. In addition, the Negotiated
Rulemaking data file included programs
that were based on a previous version of
College Scorecard prior to corrections
made to resolve incorrect institutionreported information in underlying data
sources.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Methodology for D/E Rates Calculations
The D/E rates measure is comprised of
two debt-to-earnings ratios, or rates. The
first, the annual earnings rate, is based
on annual earnings, and the second, the
discretionary earnings rate, is based on
discretionary earnings. These two
components together define a
relationship between the maximum
typical amount of debt program
graduates should borrow based on the
programs’ graduates’ typical earnings.
Both conceptually and functionally the
two metrics operate together, and so
should be thought of as one ‘‘debt to
earnings (D/E)’’ metric. The formulas for
the two D/E rates are:
Annual Earnings Rate = (Annual Loan
Payment) / (Annual Earnings)
Discretionary Earnings Rate =
(Annual Loan Payment /
(Discretionary Earnings)
A program’s annual loan payment, the
numerator in both rates, is the median
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
annual loan payment of the 2016–2017
completer cohort. This loan payment is
calculated based on the program’s
cohort median total loan debt at
program completion, including nonborrowers, subject to assumptions on
the amortization period and interest
rate. Cohorts’ median total loan debt at
program completion were computed as
follows.
• Each student’s total loan debt
includes both FFEL and Direct Loans.
Loan debt does not include PLUS Loans
made to parents, Direct Unsubsidized
Loans that were converted from TEACH
Grants, private loans, or institutional
loans that the student received for
enrollment in the program.
• In cases where a student completed
multiple programs at the same
institution, all loan debt is attributed to
the highest credentialed program that
the student completed, and the student
is not included in the calculation of
D/E rates for the lower credentialed
programs that the student completed.
• The calculations exclude students
whose loans were in military deferment,
or who were enrolled at an institution
of higher education for any amount of
time in the earnings calendar year, or
whose loans were discharged because of
disability or death.
The median annual loan payment for
each program was derived from the
median total loan debt by assuming an
amortization period and annual interest
rate based on the credential level of the
program. The amortization periods used
were:
• 10 years for undergraduate
certificate, associate degree, postbaccalaureate certificate programs, and
graduate certificate programs;
• 15 years for bachelor’s and master’s
degree programs;
• 20 years for doctoral and first
professional degree programs.
The amortization periods account for
the typical outcome that borrowers who
enroll in higher-credentialed programs
(e.g., bachelor’s and graduate degree
programs) are likely to have more loan
debt than borrowers who enroll in
lower-credentialed programs and, as a
result, are more likely to take longer to
repay their loans. These amortization
rates mirror those used in the 2014 Prior
Rule, which were based on Department
analysis of loan balances and the
differential use of repayment plan
periods by credential level at that
time.280 The interest rates used were:
• 4.27 percent for undergraduate
programs;
• 5.82 percent for graduate programs.
280 See
PO 00000
79 FR 64939–40.
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
For both undergraduate and graduate
programs, the rate used is the average
interest rate on Federal Direct
Unsubsidized loans over the three years
prior to the end of the applicable cohort
period, in this case, the average rate for
loans disbursed between the beginning
of July 2013 and the end of June 2016.
The denominators for the D/E rates
are two different measures of student
earnings. Annual earnings are the
median total earnings in the calendar
year three years after completion,
obtained from the U.S. Treasury.
Earnings were measured in calendar
years 2018 and 2019 for completers in
award years 2014–2015 and 2015–2016,
respectively, and were converted to
2019 dollars using the Consumer Price
Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI–U).
Earnings are defined as the sum of
wages and deferred compensation for all
W–2 forms plus self-employment
earnings from Schedule SE.281
Graduates who were enrolled in any
postsecondary program during calendar
year 2018 (2014–2015 completers) or
2019 (2015–2016 completers) are
excluded from the calculation of
earnings and the count of students.
Discretionary earnings are equal to
annual earnings, calculated as above,
minus 150 percent of the Federal
Poverty Guidelines for a single person,
which for 2019 is earnings in excess of
$18,735.
Professional programs in Medicine
(MD) and Dentistry (DDS), and mental
health graduate programs that lead to
clinical licensure will have earnings
measured over a longer time horizon to
accommodate lengthy post-graduate
internship training, where earnings are
likely much lower three years after
graduation than they would be even a
few years further removed from
completion.282 Since longer horizon
earnings data are not currently
available, earnings for these programs
were set to missing and treated as if they
lacked sufficient number of completers
to be measured.
Methodology for EP Rate Calculation
The EP measures the extent to which
a program’s graduates earn more than
the typical high school graduate in the
same State. The Department first
calculated the ET, which is the median
281 See Technical Documentation: College
Scorecard Data by Field of Study.
282 For example, the average medical resident
earns between roughly $62,000 and $67,000 in the
first three years of residency, according to the
Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)
Survey of Resident/Fellow Stipends and Benefits,
and the mean composition for physicians is
$260,000 for primary care and $368,000 for
specialists, according to the Medscape Physician
Compensation Report.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
earnings of high school graduates in the
labor force in each State where the
program is located. The ET is adjusted
for differences in high school earnings
across States and over time so it
naturally accounts for variations across
these dimensions to reflect what
workers would be expected to earn in
the absence of postsecondary
participation. The ET is computed as
the median annual earnings among
respondents aged 25–34 in the ACS who
have a high school diploma or GED, but
no postsecondary education, and who
are in the labor force when they are
interviewed, indicated by working or
looking for and being available to work.
This computation method yields a lower
ET that is lower than the method
proposed during negotiated rulemaking,
which would compute median annual
earnings among respondents aged 25–34
in the ACS who have a high school
diploma or GED, but no postsecondary
education, and who reported working
(i.e., having positive earnings) in the
year prior to being surveyed. Table 4.1
below shows the ET for each State
(along with the District of Columbia) in
2019. The ET ranges from $31,294
(North Dakota) to $20,859 (Mississippi).
The threshold for institutions outside
the United States is $18,735. We
provide evidence in support of the
chosen threshold below. Estimates of
the impact of the regulations using these
alternative thresholds are presented in
the ‘‘Regulatory Alternatives
Considered’’ section.
TABLE 4.1—EARNINGS THRESHOLDS
BY STATE, 2019
Earnings
threshold,
2019
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
State of Institution:
Alabama ................................
Alaska ...................................
Arizona ..................................
Arkansas ...............................
California ...............................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
22,602
27,489
25,453
24,000
26,073
Jkt 262001
TABLE 4.1—EARNINGS THRESHOLDS
BY STATE, 2019—Continued
Earnings
threshold,
2019
Colorado ................................
Connecticut ...........................
Delaware ...............................
District of Columbia ...............
Florida ...................................
Georgia .................................
Hawaii ...................................
Idaho .....................................
Illinois ....................................
Indiana ..................................
Iowa .......................................
Kansas ..................................
Kentucky ...............................
Louisiana ...............................
Maine ....................................
Maryland ...............................
Massachusetts ......................
Michigan ................................
Minnesota ..............................
Mississippi .............................
Missouri .................................
Montana ................................
Nebraska ...............................
Nevada ..................................
New Hampshire ....................
New Jersey ...........................
New Mexico ..........................
New York ..............................
North Carolina .......................
North Dakota .........................
Ohio .......................................
Oklahoma ..............................
Oregon ..................................
Pennsylvania .........................
Rhode Island .........................
South Carolina ......................
South Dakota ........................
Tennessee ............................
Texas ....................................
Utah .......................................
Vermont .................................
Virginia ..................................
Washington ...........................
West Virginia .........................
Wisconsin ..............................
Wyoming ...............................
Foreign Institutions ...................
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29,000
26,634
26,471
21,582
24,000
24,435
30,000
26,073
25,030
26,073
28,507
25,899
24,397
24,290
26,073
26,978
29,830
23,438
29,136
20,859
25,000
25,453
27,000
27,387
30,215
26,222
24,503
25,453
23,300
31,294
24,000
25,569
25,030
25,569
26,634
23,438
28,000
23,438
25,899
28,507
26,200
25,569
29,525
23,438
27,699
30,544
18,735
70125
The EP is computed as the difference
between Annual Earnings and the ET:
Earnings Premium = (Annual
Earnings)¥(Earnings Threshold)
Where the Annual Earnings is
computed as above, and the ET is
assigned for the State in which the
program is located. For foreign
institutions, 150 percent of the Federal
Poverty Guideline for the given year is
used as the ET because comparable
information about high school graduate
earnings is not available.
The Department conducted several
analyses to support the decision of the
particular ET chosen. The discussion
here focuses on undergraduate
certificate programs, which our analysis
below suggests is the sector where
program performance results are most
sensitive to the choice of ET.
First, based on student age
information available from students’
Free Application for Federal Student
Aid (FAFSA) data, we estimate that the
typical undergraduate program graduate
three years after completion, when their
earnings are measured, would be 30
years old. The average age of students
three years after completion for
undergraduate certificate programs is 31
years, while for associate programs it is
30, bachelor’s 29, master’s 33, doctoral
38, and professional programs 32. There
are very few Post-BA and Graduate
Certificate programs (162 in total) and
the average ages when their earnings are
measured are 35 and 34, respectively.283
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
283 Age at earnings measurement is not contained
in the data, so we estimate it with age at FAFSA
filing immediately before program enrollment plus
typical program length (1 for certificate, 2 for
Associate programs, 4 for bachelor’s programs) plus
3 years. To the extent that students take longer to
complete their programs, the average age will be
even older than what is reported here. Using this
approach, the mean age when earnings are likely to
be measured in programs with at least 30 students
is 30.34 across all undergraduate programs; the
mean for undergraduate certificate students is
30.42.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70126
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Average Age by e1i:; Code,. UG For.profit Certificate Programs
I
I
I
Clental Support seJVieeS.and.Allled·Rll>fessions,. •••••••••••...•.. •••................................t··•..····•····..t .............. , ..
I
I
Allied Health and. Melltcal AssistirlgSenliees ........................... c............................t ................f··•··· ..····•·•· ..
I
I
r····•·····...•·y ............._,...
Precision Metal Working ······•·•····•··•·•····•··• ................,.............
t
I
Vehicle Maintenance and. Repair Technologies .•.•., ......., •••M ..... •••• • ........... • .. ) •••·• •• .......T.................. ..
t ♦ ......,
COsmetology and RelaledPersonal GmormngSelVices ..................................... " .............._.r••·
All other programs ......................,........................_..,....
rI ...................
!••m••········ ➔·..........."".....
Heating; Air Condiliooing, Venlilatkln and ~ i o n Maintenance Technologyltecnmaan
.......................................................·+·••·•·•..,·•·...t,········ ... •·••··
somauc Bodywodrand ~eiamd Therapeu!ie SelVlces
•••••••••,•.•••• .. ••• .. ••• .... •••.......................•+••••••••••••••;••t••••dd•>••••••••
AlliedHeaffl"I tliagooslic; lnteivetmQn, and.TrealmenJ ProtessioliS •·········..............................................L ............. L........ •...... ..
I
I
Praclk::al Nursing, Vocalional llluraillg and Nursing AssiSlants .................... , ...............................L ..............,.L.....
0
"
..
I
H@llh and Medica!AdministratiVe services
I
..... ,..............................................,....i ................... i .. "..• ....... ..
I
I
0
20
10
30
40
Mean Age Whell·EamJngs Measured
Figure 4.1. Mean Age When Earnings are Measured, UG ForProfit Certificate Programs
Second, the ET is typically less than
the average pre-program income of
program entrants, as measured in their
FAFSA. Figure 4.2 shows average preprogram individual income for students
at these same types of certificate
programs, including any dependent and
independent students that had
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
previously been working.284 Figure 4.2
also plots the ET and the average postprogram median earnings for programs
under consideration. The programaverage share of students used to
compute pre-program income is also
reported in parentheses.285 Pre-program
284 To exclude workers who are minimally
attached to the labor force or in non-covered
employment, the Census Postsecondary
Employment Outcomes data requires workers to
have annual earnings greater than or equal to the
annual equivalent of full-time work at the
prevailing Federal minimum wage and at least three
quarters of non-zero earnings. (lehd.ces.census.gov/
data/pseo_documentation.html). We impose a
similar restriction, including only those students
whose pre-program earnings are equivalent to fulltime work for three quarters at the Federal
minimum wage. We only compute average preprogram income if at least 30 students meet this
criteria.
285 Across undergraduate certificate programs for
which the pre-program income measure was
calculated, the average share of students meeting
the criteria is 41 percent (weighting each program
equally) or 38 percent (weighting programs by title
IV, HEA enrollment). Given incomplete coverage
and the potential for non-random selection into the
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
income falls above or quite close to the
ET for most types of certificate
programs. Furthermore, the types of
certificate programs that we show as
having very high failure rates—
Cosmetology and Somatic Bodywork
(massage), for example—are unusual in
having very low post-program earnings
compared to other programs that have
similar pre-program income.
We view this as suggestive evidence
that the ET chosen provides a
reasonable, but conservative, guide to
the minimum earnings that program
graduates should be expected to
obtain.286
sample measuring pre-program income, we view
this analysis as only suggestive.
286 The earnings of 25 to 34 high school graduates
used to construct the ET (similar in age to program
completers 3 years after graduation) should be
expected to exceed pre-program income because the
former likely has more labor force experience than
the latter. Therefore, the comparison favors finding
that the ET exceeds pre-program income. The fact
that pre-program income generally exceeds the ET
suggests that the ET is conservative.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ER10OC23.004
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Figure 4.1 shows the average
estimated age for for-profit certificate
holders 3 years after completion, when
earnings would be measured, for the 10
most common undergraduate certificate
programs (and an aggregate ‘‘other’’
category). All credentials have an
average age that falls within or above
the range of ages used to construct the
earnings threshold. In cases where the
average age falls above this range, our
earnings threshold is lower than it
would be if we adjusted the age band
use to match the programs’ completers
ages.
70127
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
--llillgJ,Mfi,tln-.lindT.,,...__,.,_(41!_1%)
1!_"'1<1 _ _ _ {53.4%1
....... , ....... ,,,, ....... , ....... , ....... , ....... ,.,, ..9
.. , ....... ,(;) ........ , ... ,,, ...
(),.c ..
.................................................................... ,0........................ .
40,000
Qeamii,gs~
~ h p s ~ ~theemdlment"'M!igbled-averagashan!Qf~'Mitttp~mincama
Dfat lmst314fhe minimum-wage fariheitslate-..
Figure 4.2 Average Income Before Program and Earnings After
Program, For-Profit UG Certificate Programs
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Analysis of Data Coverage
This section begins with a
presentation of the Department’s
estimate of the share of enrollment and
programs that would meet the n-size
requirement and be evaluated under the
rule. We assembled data on the number
of completers in the two-year cohort
period (AYs 2016–2017) and total title
IV, HEA enrollment for programs
defined at the six-digit OPEID,
credential level, and six-digit CIP code
from NSLDS. This is the level of
aggregation that will be used in the final
rule. Total title IV, HEA enrollment at
this same level of disaggregation was
also collected. Deceased students and
students enrolled during the earnings
measurement rule will be excluded from
the earnings sample under the final rule.
We therefore impute the number of
completers in the earning sample by
multiplying the total completer count in
our data by 82 percent, which is the
median ratio of non-enrolled earning
count to total completer count derived
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
from programs defined at a four-digit
CIP code level.
Table 4.2 below reports the share of
title IV, HEA enrollment and programs
that would have metrics computed
under an n-size of 30 and using six-digit
CIP codes to define programs. We
estimate that 75 percent of GE
enrollment and 15 percent of GE
programs would have sufficient n-size
to have metrics computed with a twoyear cohort. An additional 8 percent of
enrollment and 11 percent of programs
have an n-size of between 15 and 29 and
would be likely have metrics computed
using a four-year completer cohort. The
comparable rates for eligible non-GE
programs are 69 percent of enrollment
and 19 percent of programs with a nsize of 30 and using two-year cohort
metrics, with the use of four-year cohort
rates likely increasing these coverage
rates of enrollment and programs by 13
and 15 percent, respectively.
Table 4.2 also reports similar
estimates aggregating programs to a
four-digit CIP code level. Coverage does
not diminish dramatically (3–5
percentage points) when moving from
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
four-digit CIP codes, as presented in the
2022 PPD, to six-digit CIP codes to
define programs.
We note that the high coverage of title
IV, HEA enrollment relative to title IV,
HEA programs reflects the fact that there
are many very small programs with only
a few students enrolled each year. For
example, based on our estimates, more
than half of all programs (defined at sixdigit CIP code) have fewer than five
students completing per year and about
twenty percent have fewer than five
students enrolled each year. The
Department believes that the coverage of
students based on enrollment is
sufficiently high to generate substantial
net benefits and government budget
savings from the policy, as described in
‘‘Net Budget Impacts’’ and ‘‘Accounting
Statement’’ below. We believe that the
extent to which enrollment is covered
by the final rule is the appropriate
measure on which to focus coverage
analysis on because the benefits, costs,
and transfers associated with the policy
almost all scale with the number of
students (enrollment or completions)
rather than the number of programs.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ER10OC23.005
BILLING CODE 4000–01–C
70128
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4.2—SHARE OF ENROLLMENT AND PROGRAMS MEETING SAMPLE SIZE RESTRICTIONS, BY CIP CODE LEVEL
Enrollment
CIP4
GE Programs:
n-size = 15 ................................................................................................................
n-size = 30 ................................................................................................................
Non-GE Programs:
n-size = 15 ................................................................................................................
n-size = 30 ................................................................................................................
Programs
CIP6
CIP4
CIP6
0.86
0.79
0.83
0.75
0.29
0.18
0.26
0.15
0.85
0.74
0.82
0.69
0.39
0.23
0.34
0.19
Notes: Average school-certified enrollment in AY1617 is used as the measure of enrollment, but the 2022 PPD analyzed in the RIA uses total
(certified and non-certified) enrollment, so coverage rates will differ. Non-enrolled earnings count for AY1617 completers is not available at a sixdigit CIP level (for any n-size) or at a four-digit CIP level (for n-size = 15). Therefore, non-enrolled earnings counts are imputed based on the median ratio of non-enrolled earnings count to total completer counts at the four-digit CIP level where available. This median ratio is multiplied by
the actual completer count for AY1617 at the four- and six-digit CIP level for all programs to determine the estimated n-size.
The rest of this section describes
coverage rates for programs as they
appear in the 2022 PPD to give context
for the numbers presented in the RIA.
Again, the analyses above are the better
guide to the coverage of metrics we are
publishing under the rule. The coverage
in the 2022 PPD is lower than that
reported in Table 4.2, due to differences
in data used and because the 2022 PPD
does not apply the four-year cohort
period ‘‘look back’’ provisions and
instead only uses two-year cohorts.287
Tables 4.3a and 4.3b report the share
of non-GE and GE enrollment and
programs with valid D/E rates and EP
rates in the 2022 PPD, by control and
credential level.288 For Non-GE
programs, metrics could be calculated
for about 62 percent of enrollment who
attended about 18 percent of programs.
Coverage is typically highest for public
bachelor’s degree programs and
professional programs at private
nonprofit institutions. Doctoral
programs in either sector are the least
likely to have sufficient size to compute
performance metrics. Programs at
foreign institutions are very unlikely to
have a sufficient number of completers.
Overall, about 66 percent of title IV,
HEA enrollment is in GE programs that
have a sufficient number of completers
to allow the Department to construct
both valid D/E and EP rates in the 2022
PPD. This represents about 13 percent of
GE programs. Note that a small number
of programs have an EP metric
computed but a D/E metric is not
available because there are fewer than
30 completers in the two-year debt
cohort. Coverage is typically higher in
the proprietary sector—we are able to
compute D/E or EP metrics for programs
accounting for about 87 percent of
enrollment in proprietary undergraduate
certificate programs. Comparable rates
are about 62 percent and 22 percent of
enrollment in the nonprofit and public
undergraduate certificate sectors,
respectively.
TABLE 4.3a—PERCENT OF PROGRAMS AND ENROLLMENT IN PROGRAMS WITH VALID D/E AND EP INFORMATION BY
CONTROL AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL
[Non-GE programs]
Data availability category
Has both D/E and EP
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Programs
Public:
Associate ..................................................................
Bachelor’s .................................................................
Master’s ....................................................................
Doctoral .....................................................................
Professional ..............................................................
Private, Nonprofit:
Associate ..................................................................
Bachelor’s .................................................................
Master’s ....................................................................
Doctoral .....................................................................
Professional ..............................................................
Foreign Private:
Associate ..................................................................
Bachelor’s .................................................................
Master’s ....................................................................
Doctoral .....................................................................
Professional ..............................................................
Total:
287 Unlike the final rule, the 2022 PPD also
combines earnings and debt data from two different
(but overlapping) two-year cohorts. Alternatively,
the calculations in Table 4.2 use information for a
single two-year completer cohort for both earnings
and debt, as the rule would do, and therefore
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Enrollees
Programs
Enrollees
Programs
Enrollees
11.6
39.3
14.1
2.8
37.3
55.8
74.3
50.7
21.0
55.0
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.7
0.6
88.1
60.2
85.2
96.9
62.0
43.9
25.5
48.5
78.4
44.4
12.6
13.4
18.3
6.9
42.9
61.9
50.6
60.5
45.8
74.4
0.4
0.3
0.9
0.3
1.9
0.1
0.4
0.9
1.9
0.8
87.0
86.3
80.8
92.8
55.2
38.0
49.1
38.6
52.3
24.8
....................
0.1
0.3
....................
3.4
....................
1.2
4.6
....................
20.7
....................
....................
0.1
....................
1.1
....................
....................
0.4
....................
3.9
100.0
99.9
99.6
100.0
95.5
100.0
98.8
95.0
100.0
75.4
provides a more accurate representation of the
expected overall coverage. A second difference
between the coverage estimates in Table 4.2 and
that in the 2022 PPD has do with different data
sources that result in slightly different estimates of
enrollment coverage between the two sources.
PO 00000
Does not have
EP or D/E
Has EP only
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
288 Programs located in U.S. Territories and freely
associated states are included in this table but are
considered as having no available data, which
slightly underestimates the enrollment and program
coverage estimates provided.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
70129
TABLE 4.3a—PERCENT OF PROGRAMS AND ENROLLMENT IN PROGRAMS WITH VALID D/E AND EP INFORMATION BY
CONTROL AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL—Continued
[Non-GE programs]
Data availability category
Has both D/E and EP
Programs
Total ..........................................................................
Enrollees
17.7
Does not have
EP or D/E
Has EP only
Programs
61.3
Enrollees
0.4
0.3
Programs
Enrollees
81.9
38.4
TABLE 4.3b—PERCENT OF PROGRAMS AND ENROLLMENT IN PROGRAMS WITH VALID D/E AND EP INFORMATION BY
CONTROL AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL
[GE programs]
Data availability category
Has both D/E and EP
Programs
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Public:
UG Certificates .........................................................
Post-BA Certs ...........................................................
Grad Certs ................................................................
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates .........................................................
Post-BA Certs ...........................................................
Grad Certs ................................................................
Proprietary:
UG Certificates .........................................................
Associate ..................................................................
Bachelor’s .................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...........................................................
Master’s ....................................................................
Doctoral .....................................................................
Professional ..............................................................
Grad Certs ................................................................
Total:
Total ..........................................................................
Explanation of Terms
While most analysis will be simple
cross-tabulations by two or more
variables, we use linear regression
analysis (also referred to as ‘‘ordinary
least squares’’) to answer some
questions about the relationship
between variables holding other factors
constant. Regression analysis is a
statistical method that can be used to
measure relationships between
variables. For instance, in the
demographic analysis, the demographic
variables we analyze are referred to as
‘‘independent’’ variables because they
represent the potential inputs or
determinants of outcomes or may be
proxies for other factors that influence
those outcomes. The annual debt to
earnings (D/E) rate and earnings
premium (EP) are referred to as
‘‘dependent’’ variables because they are
the variables for which the relationship
with the independent variables is
examined. The output of a regression
analysis contains several relevant points
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Enrollees
Programs
Programs
Enrollees
21.4
7.0
21.7
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.2
1.3
94.9
99.0
97.1
78.2
92.7
77.0
12.4
0.7
3.9
61.5
3.8
25.6
0.5
1.0
0.4
0.1
2.5
1.1
87.1
98.3
95.8
38.4
93.8
73.4
50.8
34.9
38.5
8.7
40.6
32.5
31.0
16.1
87.0
84.4
91.6
62.2
89.6
68.7
65.1
66.8
1.4
2.3
1.3
....................
1.9
0.8
3.4
4.8
0.4
0.7
0.6
....................
0.3
3.3
21.2
1.1
47.8
62.9
60.3
91.3
57.5
66.7
65.5
79.0
12.7
15.0
7.8
37.8
10.1
28.0
13.7
32.2
12.7
65.0
0.6
0.6
86.6
34.4
289 We use significance level, or alpha, of 0.05
when assessing the statistical significance in our
regression analysis.
Frm 00127
Enrollees
4.8
0.9
2.7
of information. The ‘‘coefficient,’’ also
known as the point estimate, for each
independent variable is the average
amount that a dependent variable is
estimated to change with a one-unit
change in the associated independent
variable, holding all other independent
variables included in the model
constant. The standard error of a
coefficient is a measure of the precision
of the estimate. The ratio of the
coefficient and standard error, called a
‘‘t-statistic’’ is commonly used to
determine whether the relationship
between the independent and
dependent variables is ‘‘statistically
significant’’ at conventional levels.289 If
an estimated coefficient is imprecise
(i.e., it has a large standard error relative
to the coefficient), it may not be a
reliable measure of the underlying
relationship. Higher values of the t-
PO 00000
Does not have
EP or D/E
Has EP only
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
statistic indicate a coefficient is more
precisely estimated. The ‘‘R-squared’’ is
the fraction of the variance of the
dependent variable that is statistically
explained by the independent variables.
Results of the Financial Value
Transparency Measures for Programs
Not Covered by Gainful Employment
In this subsection we examine the
results of the analysis of the
transparency provisions of the final
regulations for the 123,524 non-GE
programs. The analysis is focused on
results for a single set of financial-value
measures—approximating rates that
would have been released in 2022 (with
some differences, described above).
Though programs with fewer than 30
completers in the cohort are not subject
to the D/E and EP tests and would not
have these metrics published, we retain
these programs in our analysis and list
them in the tables as ‘‘No Data’’ to
provide a more complete view of the
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70130
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
distribution of enrollment and programs
across the D/E and EP metrics.
Tables 4.4 and 4.5 report the results
for non-GE programs by control and
credential level. Graduate programs
with failing D/E metrics are required to
have students acknowledge having seen
the program outcome information before
prospective students can sign
enrollment agreements with an
institution. Students at non-GE
programs that do not pass the earnings
premium metric are not subject to the
student acknowledgment requirement,
however, for informational purposes, we
report rates of passing this metric for
failure of the D/E metric is relatively
more common among public bachelor’s
degree programs and at nonprofit
associate degree programs.
• Failure for graduate programs is
almost exclusively due to the failure of
the D/E metric and is most prominent
for professional programs at private,
nonprofit institutions.
• In total, 125,600 students (1.1
percent) at public institutions and
231,100 students (5.8 percent) at
nonprofit institutions are in programs
with failing D/E metrics.
non-GE programs as well. We expect
performance on the EP metric contained
on the ED-administered program
information website to be of interest to
students even if it is not part of the
acknowledgment requirement. This
analysis shows that:
• 842 public and 640 nonprofit
degree programs (representing 1.2 and
1.5 percent of programs and 4.6 and 6.6
percent of enrollment, respectively)
would fail at least one of the D/E or EP
metrics.
• At the undergraduate level, failure
of the EP metric is most common at
associate degree programs, whereas
TABLE 4.4—NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TITLE IV, HEA ENROLLMENT IN NON-GE BY RESULT, CONTROL, AND CREDENTIAL
LEVEL
Percent of enrollment
No
data
Public:
Associate .......................................................
Bachelor’s ......................................................
Master’s .........................................................
Doctoral .........................................................
Professional ...................................................
Total ..............................................................
Private, Nonprofit:
Associate .......................................................
Bachelor’s ......................................................
Master’s .........................................................
Doctoral .........................................................
Professional ...................................................
Total ..............................................................
Foreign Private:
Associate .......................................................
Bachelor’s ......................................................
Master’s .........................................................
Doctoral .........................................................
Professional ...................................................
Total ..............................................................
Total:
Associate .......................................................
Bachelor’s ......................................................
Master’s .........................................................
Doctoral .........................................................
Professional ...................................................
Total ..............................................................
Fail
D/E
only
Pass
Number of enrollments
Fail
both
D/E
and EP
Fail
EP
only
No data
Fail
both
D/E
and EP
Fail
D/E
only
Pass
Fail
EP
only
44.1
25.9
49.4
79.0
45.1
36.3
48.1
72.3
49.4
18.4
47.4
59.2
0.4
1.1
1.2
2.6
7.5
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
7.3
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
2,425,300
1,502,200
375,800
114,800
57,400
4,475,500
2,641,900
4,195,900
375,400
26,700
60,400
7,300,200
19,900
63,000
9,000
3,800
9,600
105,300
9,800
10,300
300
0
0
20,300
400,000
29,400
0
0
0
429,400
40.6
51.4
40.2
54.2
26.7
47.7
36.2
44.8
55.6
30.3
39.0
45.6
8.0
1.7
3.8
15.4
34.1
4.1
14.5
1.0
0.3
0.1
0.0
1.7
0.6
1.2
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.8
108,500
1,362,100
320,300
77,400
34,900
1,903,200
96,600
1,186,900
442,300
43,300
50,900
1,820,000
21,500
44,800
30,400
22,000
44,400
163,000
38,600
26,800
2,400
200
0
68,100
1,700
30,600
800
0
200
33,300
100.0
98.8
95.4
100.0
79.3
95.7
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
20.7
2.6
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100
5,400
8,600
2,800
1,200
18,100
0
0
300
0
0
300
0
0
200
0
300
500
0
100
0
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
44.0
33.9
45.0
67.0
36.1
39.2
47.5
63.6
52.2
24.1
42.9
55.8
0.7
1.3
2.5
8.9
20.9
1.6
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.5
7.0
0.7
0.1
0.0
0.1
2.8
2,533,800
2,869,700
704,700
194,900
93,500
6,396,700
2,738,500
5,382,800
817,900
70,000
111,300
9,120,500
41,400
107,800
39,500
25,800
54,300
268,800
48,400
37,200
2,700
200
0
88,500
401,700
60,000
800
0
200
462,700
Note: Enrollment counts rounded to the nearest 100.
TABLE 4.5—NUMBER AND PERCENT OF NON-GE PROGRAMS BY RESULT, CONTROL, AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL
Result in 2019
No D/E or EP data
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Percent
Public:
Associate ................................................................
Bachelor’s ..............................................................
Master’s ..................................................................
Doctoral ..................................................................
Professional ...........................................................
Total .......................................................................
Private, Nonprofit:
Associate ................................................................
Bachelor’s ..............................................................
Master’s ..................................................................
Doctoral ..................................................................
Professional ...........................................................
Total .......................................................................
Foreign Private:
Associate ................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
N
Pass
Fail both D/E and
EP
Fail D/E only
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Fail EP Only
Percent
N
88.5
61.0
86.0
97.2
63.9
79.3
24,165
14,855
12,547
5,562
363
57,492
9.9
37.7
13.6
2.7
32.9
19.6
2,693
9,167
1,990
153
187
14,190
0.1
0.7
0.3
0.2
3.2
0.4
24
164
41
9
18
256
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
19
48
3
0
0
70
1.5
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
411
104
1
0
0
516
88.3
87.0
82.2
93.1
58.6
86.1
2,049
25,891
8,513
2,658
289
39,400
8.9
12.1
16.1
5.0
24.5
12.5
206
3,608
1,665
142
121
5,742
1.2
0.4
1.6
1.8
16.2
1.0
29
119
162
52
80
442
1.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.3
30
69
17
2
0
118
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.2
7
65
5
0
3
80
100.0
18
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70131
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4.5—NUMBER AND PERCENT OF NON-GE PROGRAMS BY RESULT, CONTROL, AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL—Continued
Result in 2019
No D/E or EP data
Percent
Bachelor’s ..............................................................
Master’s ..................................................................
Doctoral ..................................................................
Professional ...........................................................
Total .......................................................................
Total:
Associate ................................................................
Bachelor’s ..............................................................
Master’s ..................................................................
Doctoral ..................................................................
Professional ...........................................................
Total .......................................................................
Tables 4.6 and 4.7 report results by
credential level and 2-digit CIP code for
non-GE programs. This analysis shows
that—
• Rates of not passing at least one of
the metrics are particularly high for
N
Pass
Fail both D/E and
EP
Fail D/E only
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Fail EP Only
Percent
N
99.9
99.7
100.0
97.1
99.8
1,227
3,067
793
101
5,206
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0
4
0
0
4
0.0
0.1
0.0
2.9
0.1
0
3
0
3
6
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0
0
0
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
1
0
0
1
88.5
75.9
86.1
96.2
64.6
82.7
26,232
41,973
24,127
9,013
753
102,098
9.8
23.1
13.1
3.1
26.4
16.1
2,899
12,775
3,659
295
308
19,936
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.7
8.7
0.6
53
283
206
61
101
704
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
49
118
20
2
0
189
1.4
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.5
418
169
7
0
3
597
professional programs in law (CIP 22,
about 19 percent of law programs
representing 29 percent of enrollment in
law programs), theology (CIP 39, about
7 percent, 25 percent) and health (CIP
51, about 10 percent, 19 percent). Recall
that for graduate degrees, failure is
almost exclusively due to the D/E
metric, which would trigger the
acknowledgment requirement.
TABLE 4.6—PERCENT OF NON-GE TITLE IV, HEA ENROLLMENT IN PROGRAMS FAILING EITHER D/E OR EP METRIC, BY
CIP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Credential level
1: Agriculture & Related Sciences ..................................................................
3: Natural Resources And Conservation ........................................................
4: Architecture And Related Services .............................................................
5: Area & Group Studies .................................................................................
9: Communication ...........................................................................................
10: Communications Tech ..............................................................................
11: Computer Sciences ...................................................................................
12: Personal And Culinary Services ...............................................................
13: Education ..................................................................................................
14: Engineering ...............................................................................................
15: Engineering Tech ......................................................................................
16: Foreign Languages ...................................................................................
19: Family & Consumer Sciences ..................................................................
22: Legal Professions .....................................................................................
23: English Language .....................................................................................
24: Liberal Arts ................................................................................................
25: Library Science .........................................................................................
26: Biological & Biomedical Sciences .............................................................
27: Mathematics And Statistics .......................................................................
28: Military Science .........................................................................................
29: Military Tech ..............................................................................................
30: Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies ...................................................................
31: Parks & Rec ..............................................................................................
32: Basic Skills ................................................................................................
33: Citizenship Activities .................................................................................
34: Health-Related Knowledge And Skills ......................................................
35: Interpersonal And Social Skills .................................................................
36: Leisure And Recreational Activities ..........................................................
37: Personal Awareness And Self-Improvement ............................................
38: Philosophy And Religious Studies ............................................................
39: Theology And Religious Vocations ...........................................................
40: Physical Sciences .....................................................................................
41: Science Technologies/Technicians ...........................................................
42: Psychology ................................................................................................
43: Homeland Security ....................................................................................
44: Public Admin & Social Services ...............................................................
45: Social Sciences .........................................................................................
46: Construction Trades ..................................................................................
47: Mechanic & Repair Tech ..........................................................................
48: Precision Production .................................................................................
49: Transportation And Materials Moving .......................................................
50: Visual And Performing Arts ......................................................................
51: Health Professions And Related Programs ..............................................
52: Business ....................................................................................................
53: High School/Secondary Diplomas ............................................................
54: History .......................................................................................................
60: Residency Programs .................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Associate
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Doctoral
Professional
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
8.1
1.5
9.5
16.6
0.0
0.3
1.0
11.2
7.8
1.1
14.0
0.0
4.9
0.0
........................
0.0
1.3
4.8
0.0
........................
0.0
........................
0.0
........................
40.5
9.4
0.0
4.2
10.8
3.7
23.4
4.9
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
6.4
5.8
5.3
0.0
0.0
........................
1.2
1.3
0.0
0.6
1.8
2.9
0.1
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
2.1
8.0
9.8
5.7
2.8
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
....................
1.3
21.5
0.3
0.0
6.4
2.5
3.9
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.7
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.8
....................
0.0
1.8
2.7
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
3.6
3.9
0.6
0.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.7
0.0
0.0
4.7
5.5
0.5
3.2
0.0
....................
0.0
0.0
21.6
5.5
0.3
0.0
12.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
....................
0.0
....................
4.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
....................
....................
0.0
0.0
....................
....................
0.0
....................
0.0
....................
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
....................
....................
0.0
1.9
20.1
0.0
....................
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
........................
0.0
........................
0.0
0.0
........................
0.0
0.0
28.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
........................
........................
0.0
0.0
........................
........................
0.0
........................
........................
........................
0.0
25.4
0.0
........................
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
........................
........................
........................
........................
0.0
18.6
0.0
........................
0.0
0.0
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Total
1.0
1.2
0.7
0.5
2.0
5.9
0.6
8.3
4.2
0.0
0.2
1.8
9.2
20.0
4.8
10.8
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.2
14.8
0.2
3.7
6.6
3.2
6.2
1.6
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
11.6
5.4
1.9
0.0
1.6
0.0
70132
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4.6—PERCENT OF NON-GE TITLE IV, HEA ENROLLMENT IN PROGRAMS FAILING EITHER D/E OR EP METRIC, BY
CIP2—Continued
Credential level
Associate
Total ................................................................................................................
8.5
Bachelor’s
Master’s
2.4
Doctoral
2.7
Professional
8.9
21.0
Total
5.0
TABLE 4.7—PERCENT OF NON-GE PROGRAMS FAILING EITHER D/E OR EP METRIC, BY CIP2
Credential level
1: Agriculture & Related Sciences ..................................................................
3: Natural Resources And Conservation ........................................................
4: Architecture And Related Services .............................................................
5: Area & Group Studies .................................................................................
9: Communication ...........................................................................................
10: Communications Tech ..............................................................................
11: Computer Sciences ...................................................................................
12: Personal And Culinary Services ...............................................................
13: Education ..................................................................................................
14: Engineering ...............................................................................................
15: Engineering Tech ......................................................................................
16: Foreign Languages ...................................................................................
19: Family & Consumer Sciences ..................................................................
22: Legal Professions .....................................................................................
23: English Language .....................................................................................
24: Liberal Arts ................................................................................................
25: Library Science .........................................................................................
26: Biological & Biomedical Sciences .............................................................
27: Mathematics And Statistics .......................................................................
28: Military Science .........................................................................................
29: Military Tech ..............................................................................................
30: Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies ...................................................................
31: Parks & Rec ..............................................................................................
32: Basic Skills ................................................................................................
33: Citizenship Activities .................................................................................
34: Health-Related Knowledge And Skills ......................................................
35: Interpersonal And Social Skills .................................................................
36: Leisure And Recreational Activities ..........................................................
37: Personal Awareness And Self-Improvement ............................................
38: Philosophy And Religious Studies ............................................................
39: Theology And Religious Vocations ...........................................................
40: Physical Sciences .....................................................................................
41: Science Technologies/Technicians ...........................................................
42: Psychology ................................................................................................
43: Homeland Security ....................................................................................
44: Public Admin & Social Services ...............................................................
45: Social Sciences .........................................................................................
46: Construction Trades ..................................................................................
47: Mechanic & Repair Tech ..........................................................................
48: Precision Production .................................................................................
49: Transportation And Materials Moving .......................................................
50: Visual And Performing Arts ......................................................................
51: Health Professions And Related Programs ..............................................
52: Business ....................................................................................................
53: High School/Secondary Diplomas ............................................................
54: History .......................................................................................................
60: Residency Programs .................................................................................
Total ................................................................................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Results of GE Accountability for
Programs Subject to the Gainful
Employment Rule
This analysis is based on the 2022
PPD described in the ‘‘Data Used in this
RIA’’ above. In this subsection, we
examine the combined results of the
analysis of the final regulations for the
32,058 GE Programs. The analysis is
primarily focused on GE metric results
for a single year, though continued
eligibility depends on performance in
multiple years. The likelihood of
repeated failure is discussed briefly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Associate
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Doctoral
Professional
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
2.2
0.4
3.9
3.5
0.0
0.1
0.3
3.5
1.0
0.4
15.2
0.0
0.8
0.0
........................
0.0
1.1
0.8
0.0
........................
0.0
........................
0.0
........................
2.1
2.0
0.0
0.6
3.1
0.8
6.3
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.4
1.3
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.7
0.4
0.0
0.3
1.1
2.4
0.1
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.6
2.9
1.4
1.9
2.1
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
....................
0.2
2.5
0.0
0.0
2.9
2.0
1.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.4
0.6
0.2
0.0
0.3
....................
1.0
0.0
0.3
0.8
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.4
1.0
0.4
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.0
....................
0.0
0.0
4.9
2.5
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
....................
0.0
....................
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
....................
....................
0.0
0.0
....................
....................
0.0
....................
0.0
....................
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
....................
....................
0.0
0.4
4.5
0.0
....................
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
........................
0.0
........................
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
........................
........................
0.0
0.0
........................
........................
0.0
........................
........................
........................
0.0
6.6
0.0
........................
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
........................
........................
........................
........................
0.0
9.7
0.0
........................
0.0
0.0
8.9
below and is incorporated into the
budget impact and cost-benefit analyses.
Though programs with fewer than 30
completers in the cohort are not subject
to the D/E and EP tests, we retain these
programs in our analysis to provide a
more complete view of program passage
than if they were excluded.
Program-Level Results
Tables 4.8 and 4.9 report D/E and EP
results by control and credential level
for GE programs. This analysis shows
that:
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Total
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.9
2.1
0.2
3.6
0.9
0.0
0.1
0.4
2.7
4.9
1.4
8.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
2.4
0.0
0.4
2.0
1.2
1.7
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
3.7
2.0
0.5
0.0
0.3
0.0
1.2
• About 64 percent of enrollment is
in the 3,937 GE programs for which
rates can be calculated.
• 40 percent of enrollment is in 2,228
programs (about 7 percent of all GE
programs) that meet the size threshold
and would pass both the D/E measure
and EP metrics.
• About 24 percent of enrollment is
in 1,709 programs (about 5 percent of all
GE programs) that would fail at least
one of the two metrics.
• Failure rates are significantly lower
for public certificate programs (about 4
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70133
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
percent of enrollment is in failing
programs) than for proprietary (about 51
percent of enrollment is in failing
programs) or nonprofit (about 41
percent of enrollment is in failing
programs) certificate programs, though
one of the two metrics, representing
about 22 percent of programs. Degree
programs that fail typically fail the D/E
metric, with only associate degree
programs having a noticeable number of
programs that fail the EP metric.
the latter represents a relatively small
share of overall enrollment. Certificate
programs that fail typically fail the EP
metric, rather than the D/E metric.
• Across all proprietary certificate
and degree programs, about 33 percent
of enrollment is in programs that fail
TABLE 4.8—NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TITLE IV, HEA ENROLLMENT IN GE PROGRAMS BY RESULT, CONTROL, AND
CREDENTIAL LEVEL
Percent
No
data
Public:
UG Certificates ..............................................
Post-BA Certs ...............................................
Grad Certs .....................................................
Total ..............................................................
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates ..............................................
Post-BA Certs ...............................................
Grad Certs .....................................................
Total ..............................................................
Proprietary:
UG Certificates ..............................................
Associate .......................................................
Bachelor’s ......................................................
Post-BA Certs ...............................................
Master’s .........................................................
Doctoral .........................................................
Professional ...................................................
Grad Certs .....................................................
Total ..............................................................
Foreign Private:
UG Certificates ..............................................
Post-BA Certs ...............................................
Grad Certs .....................................................
Total ..............................................................
Foreign For-Profit:
Master’s .........................................................
Doctoral .........................................................
Professional ...................................................
Total ..............................................................
Total:
UG Certificates ..............................................
Associate .......................................................
Bachelor’s ......................................................
Post-BA Certs ...............................................
Master’s .........................................................
Doctoral .........................................................
Professional ...................................................
Grad Certs .....................................................
Total ..............................................................
Number
Fail
both
D/E
and EP
Fail
D/E
only
Pass
Fail
EP
only
No
data
Pass
Fail
both
D/E
and EP
Fail
D/E
only
Fail
EP
only
78.5
93.0
78.3
78.7
17.2
7.0
21.3
17.2
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
4.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
682,300
11,800
32,800
726,900
149,300
900
8,900
159,200
200
0
200
300
3,000
0
0
3,000
34,700
0
0
34,700
41.6
96.2
75.4
55.1
17.9
3.8
21.9
18.2
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.8
3.9
0.0
0.0
2.5
36.6
0.0
0.0
23.4
32,400
7,600
26,900
67,000
14,000
300
7,800
22,100
0
0
1,000
1,000
3,100
0
0
3,100
28,500
0
0
28,500
15.2
18.3
9.6
37.8
10.7
31.3
34.9
32.6
13.9
34.0
44.6
66.0
62.2
72.6
58.1
14.5
28.9
52.9
0.2
19.4
22.5
0.0
15.7
10.6
50.7
37.9
14.5
8.5
14.2
1.8
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
42.1
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
13.0
83,700
59,900
65,200
300
25,800
16,900
4,200
3,500
259,400
187,000
145,700
446,100
500
174,300
31,400
1,800
3,100
989,800
1,100
63,500
152,200
0
37,700
5,700
6,100
4,100
270,400
46,500
46,500
12,100
0
2,200
0
0
0
107,300
231,700
11,200
200
0
0
0
0
100
243,100
100.0
100.0
15.8
20.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
84.2
79.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100
0
200
300
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,300
1,300
0
0
0
0
100.0
80.5
79.7
80.0
0.0
19.5
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
20.3
17.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
200
1,600
9,200
11,000
0
400
0
400
0
0
2,400
2,400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53.3
18.3
9.6
92.1
10.8
33.0
56.8
70.6
36.3
23.4
44.6
66.0
7.9
72.6
56.8
7.4
22.1
40.0
0.1
19.4
22.5
0.0
15.7
10.2
35.8
5.8
9.4
3.5
14.2
1.8
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
1.4
3.9
19.7
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
10.5
798,500
59,900
65,200
19,700
25,900
18,500
13,400
63,500
1,064,600
350,300
145,700
446,100
1,700
174,300
31,800
1,800
19,900
1,171,400
1,300
63,500
152,200
0
37,700
5,700
8,500
5,200
274,100
52,500
46,500
12,100
0
2,200
0
0
1,300
114,700
294,900
11,200
200
0
0
0
0
100
306,400
Fail
both
D/E
and EP
Fail
EP
only
Note: Enrollment counts rounded to the nearest 100.
TABLE 4.9—NUMBER OF GE PROGRAMS BY RESULT, CONTROL, AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL
Number
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
No D/E
or EP
data
Public:
UG Certificates ......................................................
Post-BA Certs .......................................................
Grad Certs .............................................................
Total ......................................................................
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates ......................................................
Post-BA Certs .......................................................
Grad Certs .............................................................
Total ......................................................................
Proprietary:
UG Certificates ......................................................
Associate ...............................................................
Bachelor’s ..............................................................
Post-BA Certs .......................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Pass
Percent
Fail
both
D/E
and EP
Fail
D/E
only
Fail
EP
only
No D/E
or EP
data
Pass
Fail
D/E
only
18,051
865
1,887
20,803
729
7
50
786
1
0
2
3
6
0
0
6
184
0
0
184
95.2
99.2
97.3
95.5
3.8
0.8
2.6
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
1,229
625
1,346
3,200
93
4
43
140
0
0
8
8
5
0
0
5
60
0
0
60
88.6
99.4
96.3
93.8
6.7
0.6
3.1
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
4.3
0.0
0.0
1.8
1,659
1,155
610
48
528
327
251
4
5
98
80
0
153
78
21
0
873
62
1
0
51.6
67.2
63.3
92.3
16.4
19.0
26.1
7.7
0.2
5.7
8.3
0.0
4.8
4.5
2.2
0.0
27.1
3.6
0.1
0.0
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70134
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4.9—NUMBER OF GE PROGRAMS BY RESULT, CONTROL, AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL—Continued
Number
No D/E
or EP
data
Master’s .................................................................
Doctoral .................................................................
Professional ...........................................................
Grad Certs .............................................................
Total ......................................................................
Foreign Private:
UG Certificates ......................................................
Post-BA Certs .......................................................
Grad Certs .............................................................
Total ......................................................................
Foreign For-Profit:
UG Certificates ......................................................
Master’s .................................................................
Doctoral .................................................................
Professional ...........................................................
Total ......................................................................
Total:
UG Certificates ......................................................
Associate ...............................................................
Bachelor’s ..............................................................
Post-BA Certs .......................................................
Master’s .................................................................
Doctoral .................................................................
Professional ...........................................................
Grad Certs .............................................................
Total ......................................................................
Tables 4.10 and 4.11 report the results
by credential level and 2-digit CIP code.
This analysis shows—
• The highest rate of failure is
undergraduate certificate in Personal
and Culinary Services (CIP2 12), where
about 73 percent of enrollment,
Fail
D/E
only
Pass
Percent
Fail
both
D/E
and EP
Fail
EP
only
No D/E
or EP
data
Fail
D/E
only
Pass
Fail
both
D/E
and EP
Fail
EP
only
289
83
23
105
3,972
143
29
5
14
1,301
37
10
4
6
240
9
0
0
0
261
0
0
0
3
939
60.5
68.0
71.9
82.0
59.2
29.9
23.8
15.6
10.9
19.4
7.7
8.2
12.5
4.7
3.6
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
14.0
28
27
76
131
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
100.0
100.0
98.7
99.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
6
3
5
15
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100.0
100.0
75.0
71.4
83.3
0.0
0.0
25.0
0.0
5.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.6
11.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20,968
1,155
610
1,565
295
86
28
3,414
28,121
1,350
327
251
15
143
30
5
107
2,228
6
98
80
0
37
10
6
16
253
164
78
21
0
9
0
0
1
273
1,117
62
1
0
0
0
0
3
1,183
88.8
67.2
63.3
99.1
61.0
68.3
71.8
96.4
87.7
5.7
19.0
26.1
0.9
29.5
23.8
12.8
3.0
6.9
0.0
5.7
8.3
0.0
7.6
7.9
15.4
0.5
0.8
0.7
4.5
2.2
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
4.7
3.6
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
3.7
representing 37 percent of
undergraduate certificate programs in
that field, have failing metrics. This is
primarily due to failing the EP metric.
• In Health Professions and Related
Programs (CIP2 51), where allied health,
medical assisting, and medical
administration are the primary specific
fields, 28 percent of enrollment is in an
undergraduate certificate program that
fails at least one of the two metrics,
representing 8 percent of programs.
TABLE 4.10—PERCENT OF GE TITLE IV, HEA ENROLLMENT IN PROGRAMS FAILING EITHER D/E OR EP METRIC, BY CIP2
Credential level
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
UG
certificates
1: Agriculture & Related Sciences ..........................
3: Natural Resources And Conservation ................
4: Architecture And Related Services .....................
5: Area & Group Studies .........................................
9: Communication ...................................................
10: Communications Tech ......................................
11: Computer Sciences ...........................................
12: Personal And Culinary Services .......................
13: Education ..........................................................
14: Engineering .......................................................
15: Engineering Tech ..............................................
16: Foreign Languages ...........................................
19: Family & Consumer Sciences ..........................
22: Legal Professions .............................................
23: English Language .............................................
24: Liberal Arts ........................................................
25: Library Science .................................................
26: Biological & Biomedical Sciences .....................
27: Mathematics And Statistics ...............................
28: Military Science .................................................
29: Military Tech ......................................................
30: Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies ...........................
31: Parks & Rec ......................................................
32: Basic Skills ........................................................
33: Citizenship Activities .........................................
34: Health-Related Knowledge And Skills ..............
36: Leisure And Recreational Activities ..................
37: Personal Awareness And Self-Improvement ....
38: Philosophy And Religious Studies ....................
39: Theology And Religious Vocations ...................
40: Physical Sciences .............................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
42.4
10.4
4.9
73.2
5.9
0.0
2.0
0.0
1.8
3.3
57.4
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.3
41.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.6
0.0
Associate
Bachelor’s
PostBA
certs
Master’s
Doctoral
Professional
Grad
certs
0.0
................
................
................
0.0
54.7
9.7
59.4
74.5
37.0
1.8
................
90.2
55.9
96.6
0.0
................
0.0
................
0.0
0.0
96.2
66.0
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.1
0.0
....................
22.9
61.9
3.6
31.8
75.5
14.5
0.0
94.8
72.0
32.3
87.4
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
92.0
0.0
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.0
94.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
............
............
0.0
0.0
............
............
............
............
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
................
0.0
0.0
................
21.8
88.9
4.5
0.0
14.1
0.0
0.0
................
100.0
0.0
98.2
0.0
................
0.0
................
................
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
................
................
0.0
................
0.0
90.0
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.0
0.0
0.8
................
................
................
100.0
0.0
................
0.0
................
0.0
................
................
................
................
0.0
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.0
................
....................
....................
0.0
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.0
0.0
....................
....................
....................
....................
61.0
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.0
....................
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.5
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.8
0.0
0.0
..............
0.0
..............
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Total
0.0
9.1
0.0
0.0
30.1
38.6
5.0
72.4
24.9
3.4
1.6
4.5
21.7
26.9
66.0
3.5
23.5
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
55.3
9.3
41.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
56.1
0.0
70135
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4.10—PERCENT OF GE TITLE IV, HEA ENROLLMENT IN PROGRAMS FAILING EITHER D/E OR EP METRIC, BY
CIP2—Continued
Credential level
UG
certificates
41: Science Technologies/Technicians ...................
42: Psychology ........................................................
43: Homeland Security ............................................
44: Public Admin & Social Services .......................
45: Social Sciences .................................................
46: Construction Trades ..........................................
47: Mechanic & Repair Tech ..................................
48: Precision Production .........................................
49: Transportation And Materials Moving ...............
50: Visual And Performing Arts ..............................
51: Health Professions And Related Programs ......
52: Business ............................................................
53: High School/Secondary Diplomas ....................
54: History ...............................................................
60: Residency Programs .........................................
Total ........................................................................
0.0
0.0
3.1
0.0
0.0
5.2
2.6
4.1
2.3
9.8
28.4
6.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.3
Associate
Bachelor’s
PostBA
certs
Master’s
Doctoral
Professional
Grad
certs
0.0
0.0
54.3
81.9
0.0
0.0
9.6
0.0
0.0
46.8
33.0
40.6
0.0
0.0
................
37.1
....................
50.3
21.9
57.5
25.4
....................
0.0
....................
....................
52.4
25.2
2.8
....................
36.4
....................
24.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
............
............
............
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
............
0.0
0.0
0.0
................
27.7
19.2
15.0
64.5
................
................
................
0.0
83.5
24.0
3.8
................
0.0
................
16.6
................
38.0
66.5
9.2
0.0
................
................
................
................
................
3.3
2.0
................
................
................
10.2
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.0
36.7
0.0
....................
....................
....................
35.8
0.0
33.3
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
..............
0.0
0.0
15.1
0.6
..............
0.0
0.0
7.3
Total
0.0
36.3
21.7
36.7
18.0
5.1
3.2
4.0
2.2
38.7
27.8
9.0
0.0
20.3
0.0
23.7
TABLE 4.11—PERCENT OF GE PROGRAMS FAILING EITHER D/E OR EP METRIC, BY CIP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Credential level
1: Agriculture & Related Sciences ..........................
3: Natural Resources And Conservation ................
4: Architecture And Related Services .....................
5: Area & Group Studies .........................................
9: Communication ...................................................
10: Communications Tech ......................................
11: Computer Sciences ...........................................
12: Personal And Culinary Services .......................
13: Education ..........................................................
14: Engineering .......................................................
15: Engineering Tech ..............................................
16: Foreign Languages ...........................................
19: Family & Consumer Sciences ..........................
22: Legal Professions .............................................
23: English Language .............................................
24: Liberal Arts ........................................................
25: Library Science .................................................
26: Biological & Biomedical Sciences .....................
27: Mathematics And Statistics ...............................
28: Military Science .................................................
29: Military Tech ......................................................
30: Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies ...........................
31: Parks & Rec ......................................................
32: Basic Skills ........................................................
33: Citizenship Activities .........................................
34: Health-Related Knowledge And Skills ..............
35: Interpersonal And Social Skills .........................
36: Leisure And Recreational Activities ..................
37: Personal Awareness And Self-Improvement ....
38: Philosophy And Religious Studies ....................
39: Theology And Religious Vocations ...................
40: Physical Sciences .............................................
41: Science Technologies/Technicians ...................
42: Psychology ........................................................
43: Homeland Security ............................................
44: Public Admin & Social Services .......................
45: Social Sciences .................................................
46: Construction Trades ..........................................
47: Mechanic & Repair Tech ..................................
48: Precision Production .........................................
49: Transportation And Materials Moving ...............
50: Visual And Performing Arts ..............................
51: Health Professions And Related Programs ......
52: Business ............................................................
53: High School/Secondary Diplomas ....................
54: History ...............................................................
60: Residency Programs .........................................
Total ........................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
UG
certificates
Associate
Bachelor’s
PostBA
certs
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
1.3
0.8
37.2
1.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.6
8.6
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
5.4
0.0
0.0
......................
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.2
1.5
1.6
0.9
1.2
8.4
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.5
0.0
................
................
................
0.0
17.4
6.0
12.7
10.0
20.0
2.8
................
25.0
19.7
20.0
0.0
................
0.0
................
0.0
0.0
25.0
12.0
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.6
40.0
0.0
0.0
6.2
0.0
0.0
18.8
16.5
14.9
0.0
0.0
................
13.8
0.0
20.0
0.0
....................
12.0
29.2
1.8
18.2
18.2
10.0
0.0
50.0
27.3
12.5
36.4
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.6
0.0
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.0
20.0
0.0
....................
28.6
12.1
21.4
13.3
....................
0.0
....................
....................
23.5
6.3
5.2
....................
16.7
....................
10.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
............
............
0.0
0.0
............
............
............
............
............
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
............
0.0
............
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
............
0.0
0.0
0.0
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Master’s
Doctoral
Professional
Grad
certs
................
0.0
0.0
................
11.1
33.3
2.4
0.0
6.3
0.0
0.0
................
100.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
................
0.0
................
................
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
................
................
................
0.0
................
0.0
14.3
................
................
15.8
13.0
10.5
20.0
................
................
................
0.0
38.5
10.6
4.3
................
0.0
................
9.5
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.0
0.0
4.3
................
................
................
100.0
0.0
................
0.0
................
0.0
................
................
................
................
0.0
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.0
................
................
13.3
25.0
28.6
0.0
................
................
................
................
................
5.1
4.3
................
................
................
7.9
....................
....................
0.0
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.0
0.0
....................
....................
....................
....................
25.0
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.0
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.0
22.2
0.0
....................
....................
....................
15.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
..............
0.0
0.0
..............
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
..............
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.2
..............
0.0
0.0
0.6
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Total
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
2.4
4.4
1.2
35.5
1.2
0.7
0.3
0.4
1.9
4.0
7.9
0.9
1.9
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
2.3
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
3.7
3.0
2.8
0.8
1.2
1.7
1.6
0.8
5.5
8.2
2.4
0.0
1.8
0.0
5.3
70136
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Program Ineligibility
For GE programs, title IV, HEA
ineligibility is triggered by two years of
failing the same metric within a threeyear period. Years when a program does
not meet the n-size requirement are not
counted towards those three years. The
top panel of Table 4.12 shows the share
of GE enrollment and programs in each
result category in a second year as a
function of the result in the first year,
along with the rate of becoming
ineligible. Failure rates are quite
persistent, with failure in one year being
highly predictive of failure in the next
year, and therefore ineligibility for title
IV, HEA funds. Among programs that
fail only the D/E metric in the first year,
69.6 percent of enrollment is in
programs that also fail D/E in year 2 and
would be ineligible for title IV, HEA
participation the following year. The
comparable rates for programs that fail
EP only or both D/E and EP in the first
year are 86.6 and 96.3 percent,
respectively. The share of programs
(rather than enrollment in such
programs) that become ineligible
conditional on first year results is
similar, as shown in the bottom panel of
Table 4.12. These rates understate the
share of programs that would ultimately
become ineligible when a third year is
considered.
Table 4.12. GE Program Performance Transition Between Years One and Two
Percent of Enrollment by Result in Year Two
Fail
No D/E
Fail
both
Fail EP
or EP
Pass
D/E
D/E and
only
data
only
EP
·rl rl
-1-l
rl
~
>-l
rd
Q)
~ :>-<
~
No D/E or EP data
Pass
Fail D/E only
Fail both D/E and EP
Fail EP only
78.2
3.0
3.5
0.3
1.9
14.2
91.9
24.0
0.3
5.9
0.5
1.7
57.7
5.5
0.0
1.3
0.1
14.6
83.2
8.4
5.8
3.3
0.1
10.6
83.8
Percent of Programs by Result in Year Two
Fail
No D/E
Fail
both
Fail EP
or EP
Pass
D/E
D/E and
only
only
data
EP
.::
·rl rl
-1-l
rl
~
~
~
>-l
rd
Q)
:>-<
No D/E or EP data
Pass
Fail D/E only
Fail both D/E and EP
Fail EP only
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Institution-Level Analysis of GE
Program Accountability Provisions
Many institutions have few programs
that are subject to the accountability
provisions of GE, either because they are
nonproprietary institutions with
relatively few certificate programs or
because their programs tend to be too
small in size to have published median
debt or earnings measures.
Characterizing the share of GE programs
that have reported debt and earnings
metrics that fail in particular
postsecondary sectors can therefore give
a distorted sense for the effect the rule
might have on institutions in that sector.
For example, a college (or group of
colleges) might offer a single GE
program that fails the rule and so appear
to have 100 percent of its GE programs
fail the rule. But if that program is a very
small share of the institution’s overall
enrollment (or its title IV, HEA
enrollment) then even if every student
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
95.6
9.5
13.4
2.2
9.1
3.0
82.9
16.2
1.5
4.1
0.1
1.5
51.8
5.5
0.1
0.2
0.4
17.8
72.9
8.1
in that program were to stop enrolling
in the institution—an unlikely scenario
as discussed below—the effect on the
institution(s) would be much less than
would be implied by the 100 percent
failure rate among its GE programs. To
provide better context for evaluating the
potential effect of the GE rule on
institutions or sets of institutions, we
describe the share of all title IV, HEA
supported enrollment—including
enrollment in both GE and non-GE
programs—that is in a GE program and
that fails a GE metric and, therefore, is
at risk of losing title IV, HEA
eligibility.290 Again, this should not be
290 Note that these statistics still do not fully
capture the financial impact of GE on institutions.
A complete analysis would account for the share of
institutional revenue accounted for by title IV, HEA
students, and the extent to which students in
programs that fail GE will unenroll from the
institutions entirely (versus transferring to a passing
program at the same institution). The measures here
are best viewed as a proxy for the share of Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Ineligible
72.3
99.3
92.1
Ineligible
1.1
5.7
0.8
17.9
78.5
69.6
96.3
86.6
viewed as an estimate of potential
enrollment (or revenue) loss to the
institution—in many cases the most
likely impact of a program failing the GE
metrics or losing eligibility is that
students enroll in higher performing
programs in the same institution.
Table 4.13 reports the distribution of
institutions by share of enrollment that
is in a failing GE program, by control
and institution type. It shows that about
91 percent of public institutions and 95
percent of nonprofit institutions have no
enrollment in GE programs that fail the
GE metric. This rate is much lower–
about 44 percent -for proprietary
institutions, where all types of
credential programs are covered by GE
accountability and failure rates tend to
be higher.
title IV, HEA revenue at an institution that is
potentially at risk due to the GE accountability
provisions.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ER10OC23.007
.::
70137
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4.13—DISTRIBUTION OF INSTITUTIONS BY SHARE OF ENROLLMENT THAT FAILS GE ACCOUNTABILITY, BY CONTROL
AND INSTITUTION TYPE
[All Institutions]
Share of institutional enrollment in failing GE programs
Total
Public:
Less-Than 2-Year .....................................
2-Year .......................................................
4-Year or Above .......................................
Total ..........................................................
Private, Nonprofit:
Less-Than 2-Year .....................................
2-Year .......................................................
4-Year or Above .......................................
Total ..........................................................
Proprietary:
Less-Than 2-Year .....................................
2-Year .......................................................
4-Year or Above .......................................
Total ..........................................................
Total:
Less-Than 2-Year .....................................
2-Year .......................................................
4-Year or Above .......................................
Total ..........................................................
0%
0–5%
5–10%
10–20%
20–40%
40–99%
100%
560
650
380
1,590
470
610
380
1,450
20
40
0
60
10
0
0
20
30
0
0
30
20
0
0
30
10
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
110
60
560
730
90
50
550
690
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
10
10
0
0
10
1,270
120
100
1,490
530
70
60
660
10
0
0
10
10
10
0
10
20
0
10
30
30
10
10
60
200
30
20
240
480
0
0
490
1,940
820
1,050
3,810
1,080
720
990
2,800
30
40
10
80
20
10
10
30
50
10
10
60
60
20
10
90
210
30
20
260
490
0
0
500
Note: All counts rounded to the nearest 100. Columns may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Very few public community or
technical colleges (CCs) have
considerable enrollment in programs
that would fail GE. About 6 percent of
the predominant 2-year public colleges
have any of their enrollment in
certificate programs that would fail, and
about 5 percent of the predominantly
less than two-year technical colleges
have more than 20 percent of
enrollment that does.
The share of enrollment in failing GE
programs for Historically Black Colleges
and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal
Colleges and Universities (TCUs), and
other minority-serving institutions is
even smaller, as shown in Table 4.14.291
At HBCUs, only one college out of 100
has more than five percent of
enrollment in failing programs; across
all HBCUs, only five programs at four
schools fail. TCUs have no failing
programs. Less than one percent of
Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs)
have more than 10 percent of
enrollment in failing programs.292 We
conducted a similar analysis excluding
institutions that do not have any GE
programs. The patterns are similar.
TABLE 4.14—DISTRIBUTION OF INSTITUTIONS BY SHARE OF ENROLLMENT THAT FAILS GE ACCOUNTABILITY, BY SPECIAL
MISSION TYPE
Share of institutional enrollment in failing GE programs
Total
0%
0–5%
5–10%
10–20%
20–40%
40–99%
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
N of Institutions
HBCU .....................................................................
TCU ........................................................................
HSI .........................................................................
All Other Non-FP MSI ............................................
100
35
446
158
96
35
425
144
3
0
17
3
1
0
1
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
2
4
0
0
1
0
Total ................................................................
739
700
23
5
4
6
1
As noted above, these estimates
cannot assess the impact of the GE
provisions on total enrollment at these
institutions. Especially at institutions
with diverse program offerings, many
students in failing programs can be
expected to transfer to other non-failing
programs within the institution (as
opposed to exiting the institution).
Moreover, many institutions are likely
to admit additional enrollment into
their programs from failing programs at
other (especially for-profit) institutions.
We quantify the magnitude of this
enrollment shift and revisit the
291 Under § 668.403(b)(1)(i), debt considered in
the calculation of the D/E rates is capped at the total
net cost for tuition, fees, and books. However, due
to data constraints noted in the RIA, this cap was
not applied in the analysis of the impact of the rule.
An analysis by New America suggests that this cap
will lead to a large reduction in the number of
graduate programs at HBCUs, HSIs, TCUs, and other
MSIs projected to fail the D/E rates measure. See
Caldwell, Tia & Garza, Roxanne (2023). Previous
Projections Overestimated Gainful Employment
Failures: Almost All HBCUs & MSI Graduate
Programs Pass. New America (https://
www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/
ge-failures-overestimated/).
292 The number of Hispanic Serving Institutions
reported here differs slightly from the current
eligibility list, as the 2022 PPD uses designations
from 2021. The number of HBCUs and TCUs is the
same in both sources, however.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70138
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
implications for overall institution-level
enrollment effects in a later section.
Regulation Targets Low-Performing GE
Programs
The Department conducted an
analysis on which specific GE programs
fail the metrics. The analysis concludes
that the metrics target programs where
students earn little, borrow more, and
default at higher rates on their student
loans than similar programs providing
the same credential.
Table 4.15 reports the average
program-level cohort default rate for GE
programs, separately by result, control,
and credential level. Programs are
weighted by their average title IV, HEA
enrollment in AY 2016 and 2017 to
better characterize the outcomes
experienced by students. The overall 3year program default rate is 12.9 percent
but is higher for certificate programs
and for programs offered by proprietary
schools. The average default rate is
higher for programs that fail the EP
threshold than for programs that fail the
D/E metric, despite debt being lower for
the former. This is because even low
levels of debt are difficult to repay when
earnings are very low. Programs that
pass the metrics, either with data or
without, have lower default rates than
those that fail.
TABLE 4.15—AVERAGE PROGRAM COHORT DEFAULT RATE BY RESULT, OVERALL AND BY CONTROL, AND CREDENTIAL
LEVEL
[Enrollment-weighted]
No data
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Public:
UG Certificates .........................................................
Post-BA Certs ...........................................................
Grad Certs ................................................................
Total ..........................................................................
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates .........................................................
Post-BA Certs ...........................................................
Grad Certs ................................................................
Total ..........................................................................
Proprietary:
UG Certificates .........................................................
Associate ..................................................................
Bachelor’s .................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...........................................................
Master’s ....................................................................
Doctoral .....................................................................
Professional ..............................................................
Grad Certs ................................................................
Total ..........................................................................
Foreign Private:
UG Certificates .........................................................
Post-BA Certs ...........................................................
Grad Certs ................................................................
Total ..........................................................................
Foreign For-Profit:
Master’s ....................................................................
Doctoral .....................................................................
Professional ..............................................................
Total ..........................................................................
Total:
UG Certificates .........................................................
Associate ..................................................................
Bachelor’s .................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...........................................................
Master’s ....................................................................
Doctoral .....................................................................
Professional ..............................................................
Grad Certs ................................................................
Total ..........................................................................
To better understand the specific
types of programs that underpin the
aggregate patterns described above,
Table 4.16 lists the 20 most common
types of programs (the combination of
field and credential level) by enrollment
count in the 2022 PPD. The programs
with the highest enrollments are
undergraduate certificate programs in
cosmetology, allied health, liberal arts,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Pass
Fail D/E
only
Fail both D/
E and EP
Fail EP only
16.6
2.3
2.6
15.8
17.5
2.4
2.2
16.5
11.1
....................
0.0
6.2
20.4
....................
....................
20.4
19.9
....................
....................
19.9
16.9
2.3
2.5
16.1
10.0
2.9
2.6
6.2
9.9
1.2
1.9
6.9
....................
....................
0.4
0.4
15.9
....................
....................
15.9
14.5
....................
....................
14.5
12.0
2.8
2.4
8.7
14.0
15.0
13.7
26.4
4.9
3.8
1.0
1.4
12.0
14.4
12.8
11.5
13.2
3.8
4.6
0.0
4.2
10.6
16.9
17.9
14.4
....................
5.1
5.4
0.7
5.5
13.3
14.9
19.6
14.8
....................
4.5
....................
....................
....................
16.7
13.9
17.6
11.9
....................
....................
....................
....................
.
14.1
14.2
15.3
12.4
16.9
4.1
4.4
0.7
3.9
12.0
0.0
12.5
5.2
3.6
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.0
0.0
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.0
12.5
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.5
1.3
1.1
....................
5.3
....................
5.3
....................
....................
1.3
1.3
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.0
1.4
1.3
1.3
16.1
15.0
13.7
2.9
4.8
3.5
1.2
2.5
13.9
15.4
12.8
11.5
5.4
3.8
4.6
0.0
2.4
11.3
16.1
17.9
14.4
....................
5.1
5.4
0.8
4.4
13.1
15.3
19.6
14.8
....................
4.5
....................
....................
0.0
16.6
14.6
17.6
11.9
....................
....................
....................
....................
.
14.7
15.5
15.3
12.4
3.2
4.1
4.3
1.0
2.6
12.9
and practical nursing, along with
bachelor’s programs in business and
nursing. These 20 most common types
of programs represent more than half of
all enrollments in GE programs. Table
4.17 provides the average program
annual loan payment (weighted by the
number of students completing a
program), the average program earnings
(weighted by the number of students
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Total
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
completing a program), the average
annual D/E rate, and the average cohort
default rate (weighted by the number of
students completing a program). This
shows quite a bit of variability in debt,
loan service, earnings, and default
across different types of programs.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70139
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
4.16—GE PROGRAMS WITH THE MOST STUDENTS, BY CIP AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL
Number of
programs
Field of Study (Ordered by All-Sector Enrollment):
1204—Cosmetology & Personal Grooming—UG Certificates ..................................................
5202—Business Administration—Bachelor’s .............................................................................
5108—Allied Health (Medical Assisting)—UG Certificates .......................................................
2401—Liberal Arts—UG Certificates .........................................................................................
5139—Practical Nursing—UG Certificates ................................................................................
5107—Health & Medical Administrative Services—UG Certificates .........................................
5138—Registered Nursing, Nursing Administration, Nursing Research & Clinical Nursing—
Bachelor’s ...............................................................................................................................
4706—Vehicle Maintenance & Repair—UG Certificates ..........................................................
4301—Criminal Justice & Corrections—Bachelor’s ..................................................................
5202—Business Administration—Master’s ................................................................................
4805—Precision Metal Working—UG Certificates ....................................................................
5109—Allied Health (Diagnostic & Treatment)—UG Certificates .............................................
5108—Allied Health (Medical Assisting)—Associate ................................................................
5107—Health & Medical Administrative Services—Bachelor’s .................................................
5202—Business Administration—Associate ..............................................................................
5107—Health & Medical Administrative Services—Associate ..................................................
5138—Registered Nursing, Nursing Administration, Nursing Research & Clinical Nursing—
Master’s ..................................................................................................................................
5138—Registered Nursing, Nursing Administration, Nursing Research & Clinical Nursing—
Associate ................................................................................................................................
5202—Business Administration—UG Certificates .....................................................................
5106—Dental Support—UG Certificates ...................................................................................
All Other Programs ...........................................................................................................................
Percent of
all programs
Percent of
students at
all programs
Number of
students
1,267
72
895
345
1,032
910
4.0
0.2
2.9
1.1
3.3
2.9
191,600
149,000
147,100
140,900
130,900
83,500
6.5
5.1
5.0
4.8
4.5
2.8
56
722
47
46
761
725
142
46
89
128
0.2
2.3
0.2
0.1
2.4
2.3
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.4
75,600
75,100
55,500
55,400
49,000
47,000
43,800
42,100
39,600
38,700
2.6
2.6
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
20
0.1
37,800
1.3
92
573
432
22,920
0.3
1.8
1.4
73.2
36,300
34,300
33,100
1,424,900
1.2
1.2
1.1
48.6
Note: the number of students has been rounded to the nearest 100.
4.17—ANNUAL LOAN PAYMENT, EARNINGS, D/E RATE, COHORT DEFAULT RATE BY PROGRAM TYPE
[Enrollment-weighted]
Annual loan
payment
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Field of Study (Ordered by All-Sector Enrollment):
1204—Cosmetology & Personal Grooming—UG Certificates ........................................................
5202—Business Administration—Bachelor’s ...................................................................................
5108—Allied Health (Medical Assisting)—UG Certificates .............................................................
2401—Liberal Arts—UG Certificates ...............................................................................................
5139—Practical Nursing—UG Certificates ......................................................................................
5107—Health & Medical Administrative Services—UG Certificates ...............................................
5138—Registered Nursing, Nursing Administration, Nursing Research & Clinical Nursing—
Bachelor’s .....................................................................................................................................
4706—Vehicle Maintenance & Repair—UG Certificates ................................................................
4301—Criminal Justice & Corrections—Bachelor’s ........................................................................
5202—Business Administration—Master’s ......................................................................................
4805—Precision Metal Working—UG Certificates ..........................................................................
5109—Allied Health (Diagnostic & Treatment)—UG Certificates ...................................................
5108—Allied Health (Medical Assisting)—Associate ......................................................................
5107—Health & Medical Administrative Services—Bachelor’s .......................................................
5202—Business Administration—Associate ....................................................................................
5107—Health & Medical Administrative Services—Associate ........................................................
5138—Registered Nursing, Nursing Administration, Nursing Research & Clinical Nursing—Master’s ...............................................................................................................................................
5138—Registered Nursing, Nursing Administration, Nursing Research & Clinical Nursing—Associate ..........................................................................................................................................
5202—Business Administration—UG Certificates ...........................................................................
5106—Dental Support—UG Certificates .........................................................................................
All Other Programs .................................................................................................................................
Table 4.18 lists the most frequent
types of failing GE programs (by
enrollment in failing programs). Failing
programs are disproportionately in a
small number of types of programs.
About 22 percent of enrollment in
failing programs is in UG Certificate
Cosmetology programs alone, reflecting
both high enrollment and high failure
rates. Another 20 percent are in UG
Certificate programs in Health/Medical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
administration and assisting, dental
support, and massage, reflecting large
enrollment and moderate failure rates.
These 20 categories account for about 72
percent of all enrollments in programs
that fail at least one GE metric. Table
4.19 provides the average program
annual loan payment, the average
program earnings, and the average
default rate (all weighted by title IV,
HEA enrollment) for the most frequent
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Median 2018–19
earnings
(in 2019 $)
of 3yrs after
graduation
Average
annual DTE
rate
Cohort
default
rate
1,004
2,711
947
99
1,075
1,107
17,104
48,059
24,137
29,893
39,763
23,556
6.51
5.78
4.28
0.26
3.07
5.34
13.68
14.07
16.58
16.38
10.23
14.96
1,948
1,410
2,720
3,725
642
564
2,275
3,292
2,532
2,721
76,718
37,746
38,155
58,366
34,659
42,953
31,598
37,044
32,427
26,779
2.68
4.03
7.69
6.60
2.11
2.15
7.98
9.22
8.30
10.51
3.81
19.48
17.06
4.09
26.57
11.7
12.16
10.89
21.66
14.02
3,852
96,946
4.02
2.59
2,535
705
1,024
3,105
61,494
35,816
24,557
42,530
4.69
1.60
4.42
7.98
6.93
20.07
14.00
12.07
types (by field and credential) of GE
programs that fail at least one GE metric
(by enrollment count), separately for
failing and passing programs. Within
each type of program, failing programs
have much higher loan payments, lower
earnings, and higher default rates than
programs that pass the GE metrics. This
demonstrates that higher-performing GE
programs exist even within the same
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70140
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
field and credential level as programs
that fail GE.
4.18—FAILING GE PROGRAMS WITH THE MOST STUDENTS, BY GE RESULT, CIP, AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL
Number of
failing
programs
Percent of
failing
programs
Percent of
students at
failing
programs
Number of
students
1204—Cosmetology & Personal Grooming—UG Certificates ........................................................................
5108—Allied Health (Medical Assisting)—UG Certificates .............................................................................
5107—Health & Medical Administrative Services—UG Certificates ..............................................................
5107—Health & Medical Administrative Services—Associate .......................................................................
5107—Health & Medical Administrative Services—Bachelor’s ......................................................................
3017—Behavioral Sciences—Bachelor’s ........................................................................................................
5202—Business Administration—Associate ...................................................................................................
5108—Allied Health (Medical Assisting)—Associate ......................................................................................
1312—Teacher Education & Professional Development, Specific Levels & Methods—Bachelor’s ..............
5115—Mental & Social Health Services & Allied Professions—Master’s ......................................................
5106—Dental Support—UG Certificates ........................................................................................................
5135—Somatic Bodywork—UG Certificates ...................................................................................................
4301—Criminal Justice & Corrections—Bachelor’s ........................................................................................
4400—Human Services, General—Bachelor’s ...............................................................................................
4301—Criminal Justice & Corrections—Associate .........................................................................................
4201—Psychology—Bachelor’s ......................................................................................................................
1205—Culinary Arts—UG Certificates ............................................................................................................
2301—English Language & Literature, General—UG Certificates .................................................................
5139—Practical Nursing—UG Certificates .....................................................................................................
5204—Business Operations—UG Certificates ...............................................................................................
All Other Programs .........................................................................................................................................
638
159
106
37
5
2
23
38
2
5
63
95
7
2
16
4
21
8
27
33
485
35.9
9.0
6.0
2.1
0.3
0.1
1.3
2.1
0.1
0.3
3.5
5.3
0.4
0.1
0.9
0.2
1.2
0.5
1.5
1.9
27.3
153,700
79,100
37,600
28,800
26,400
20,100
19,000
17,600
17,500
15,400
14,300
13,400
13,100
12,100
11,700
10,200
5,800
5,600
5,500
5,400
201,200
21.5
11.1
5.3
4.0
3.7
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.4
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
28.2
Total ..................................................................................................................................................
1,776
100.0
713,200
100.0
Note: Student counts rounded to the nearest 100.
4.19—ANNUAL LOAN PAYMENT, EARNINGS, DEFAULT RATE AMONG TOP TYPES OF FAILING GE PROGRAMS
Annual loan payment
indicator for failing GE
metric in 2019 for any
reason
Passing
Field of Study & Level (Ordered by Failing Program Enrollment):
1204—Cosmetology & Personal Grooming—UG Certificates ..........................................
5108—Allied Health (Medical Assisting)—UG Certificates ...............................................
5107—Health & Medical Administrative Services—UG Certificates .................................
5107—Health & Medical Administrative Services—Associate ..........................................
5107—Health & Medical Administrative Services—Bachelor’s .........................................
3017—Behavioral Sciences—Bachelor’s ..........................................................................
5202—Business Administration—Associate ......................................................................
5108—Allied Health (Medical Assisting)—Associate ........................................................
1312—Teacher Education & Professional Development, Specific Levels & Methods—
Bachelor’s .......................................................................................................................
5115—Mental & Social Health Services & Allied Professions—Master’s .........................
5106—Dental Support—UG Certificates ...........................................................................
5135—Somatic Bodywork—UG Certificates .....................................................................
4301—Criminal Justice & Corrections—Bachelor’s ..........................................................
4400—Human Services, General—Bachelor’s ..................................................................
4301—Criminal Justice & Corrections—Associate ............................................................
4201—Psychology—Bachelor’s .........................................................................................
1205—Culinary Arts—UG Certificates ...............................................................................
2301—English Language & Literature, General—UG Certificates ...................................
5139—Practical Nursing—UG Certificates ........................................................................
5204—Business Operations—UG Certificates ..................................................................
All Other Programs ...................................................................................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Student Demographic Analysis
Methodology for Student Demographic
Analysis
The Department conducted analyses
of the 2022 PPD to assess the role of
student demographics as a factor in
program performance. Our analysis
demonstrates that GE programs that fail
the metrics have particularly bad
outcomes that are not explained by
student demographics alone. We
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Failing
Frm 00138
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Default rate (ever)
indicator for failing
GE metric in 2019
for any reason
Passing
Passing
Failing
Failing
566.7
813.1
860.2
2,250.0
2,960.3
................
2,304.5
3,458.0
1,063.9
1,034.3
1,279.7
2,857.4
3,482.3
3,499.3
2,762.1
3,121.2
27,199.4
27,612.1
28,803.9
32,807.9
43,590.7
................
37,887.8
36,729.0
16,913.1
22,527.1
21,243.7
25,598.2
34,118.7
29,512.7
27,280.5
31,081.2
17.2
16.5
14.6
9.5
10.4
0.0
19.6
9.2
13.0
16.6
15.4
15.5
11.2
16.5
23.9
11.0
2,027.4
5,305.3
986.9
672.6
2,465.7
2,493.8
1,517.7
2,068.4
2,399.3
................
104.7
494.1
2,462.3
2,707.3
7,096.9
1,055.5
948.6
3,527.6
3,903.3
2,625.0
3,333.3
0.0
3,661.0
0.0
635.9
4,062.4
35,298.8
49,712.0
27,084.4
27,373.5
40,112.4
33,323.4
35,501.2
36,641.7
................
................
30,557.3
28,985.0
52,687.3
26,152.5
42,604.7
23,011.8
19,258.2
32,371.9
32,788.8
28,408.3
28,865.8
19,361.7
36,873.0
26,423.7
18,202.5
29,767.5
10.1
4.5
13.1
13.6
15.4
14.3
18.8
11.1
35.0
25.0
16.6
13.5
11.6
16.0
6.1
15.1
13.3
22.3
14.9
22.1
17.4
6.0
9.9
11.9
16.0
13.3
examined the demographic composition
of program enrollment, comparing the
composition of programs that pass, fail,
or did not have data. We also conducted
regression analysis, which permits us to
hold constant several factors at once.
This analysis focuses on GE programs
since non-GE programs are not at risk of
PO 00000
Earnings indicator for
failing GE metric in
2019 for any reason
becoming ineligible for title IV, HEA
aid.293
For the race and ethnicity variables,
we used the proportion of individuals in
each race and ethnicity category among
all completers of each certificate or
293 We conducted the regression analysis
discussed below for non-GE programs as well. Our
conclusions about the relative contribution of
demographic factors in explaining program
performance on the D/E and EP metrics is similar
for non-GE programs as for GE programs.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
degree reported in the IPEDS 2016 and
2017 Completions Surveys.294 Race and
ethnicity is not available for only title
IV, HEA recipients, so we rely on
information for all (including non-title
IV, HEA student) completers instead
from IPEDS. We construct four race/
ethnicity variables:
• Percent Black
• Percent Hispanic
• Percent Asian
• Percent non-White.
We aggregated the number of
completions in each race/ethnicity
category reported for each program in
IPEDS to the corresponding GE program
definition of six-digit OPEID, CIP code,
and credential level. While D/E and EP
rates measure only the outcomes of
students who completed a program and
received title IV, HEA program funds,
IPEDS completions data include both
title IV, HEA graduates and non-title IV,
HEA graduates. Race and ethnicity data
is not available separately for title IV,
HEA completers. We believe the IPEDS
data provides a reasonable
approximation of the proportion, by
race and ethnicity, of title IV, HEA
graduates completing GE programs. We
determined percent of each race and
ethnicity category for 25,278 of the
32,058 programs. Many smaller
programs could not be matched
primarily because, as stated above,
IPEDS and NSLDS use different program
categorization systems, and the two
sources at times are not sufficiently
consistent to match data at the GE
program-level. Nonetheless, we do not
believe this will substantially affect our
results since programs that do not match
are less likely to meet the n-size criteria
and would be likely excluded from our
analysis of program performance.
Percent Pell for this analysis is the
percentage of title IV, HEA completers
during award years 2015, 2016, and
2017 who received a Pell grant at any
time in their academic career. Because
Pell status is being used as a proxy for
socioeconomic background, we counted
students if they had received a Pell
grant at any time in their academic
career, even if they did not receive it for
enrollment in the program. For instance,
students that received Pell at their
initial undergraduate institution but not
at another institution they attended later
would be considered a Pell grant
recipient at both institutions.
Several other background variables
were collected from students’ Free
Application for Federal Student Aid
(FAFSA) form. For all students
receiving title IV, HEA aid in award
years 2015, 2016, and 2017, the
Department matched their enrollment
records to their latest FAFSA filed
associated with their first award year in
the program in which they were
enrolled. First-generation status,
described below, is taken from students
earliest received FAFSA. From these,
the Department constructed the
following:
• Percent of students that are male.
• Percent of students that are firstgeneration, defined as those who
indicated on the FAFSA not having a
parent that had attended college.
Children whose parents completed
college are more likely to attend and
complete college.
• Average family income in 2019
dollars. For dependent students, this
includes parental income and the
students’ own income. For independent
students, it includes the student’s own
income and spousal income.
• Average expected family
contribution. We consider EFC as an
indicator of socioeconomic status
because EFC is calculated based on
household income, other resources, and
family size.
• Average age at time of FAFSA
filing.
70141
• Percent of students aged 24 or older
at time of FAFSA filing.
• Share of students that are
independent. Independent status is
determined by a number of factors,
including age, marital status, having
dependents, and veteran status.
• Median student income prior to
program enrollment among students
whose income is greater than or equal
to three-quarters of a year of earnings at
Federal minimum wage. We only
compute this variable for programs
where at least 30 students meet this
requirement, this variable should be
viewed as a rough indicator of students’
financial position prior to program
entry. The average percentage of
enrollees covered by this variable is 57.6
across all programs.
Based on these variables, we
determined the composition of over
23,907 of the 32,058 programs in our
data, though some demographic
variables have more non-missing
observations. Unless otherwise stated,
our demographic analysis treats
programs (rather than students) as the
unit of analysis. The analysis, therefore,
does not weight programs (and their
student characteristics) by enrollment.
Table 4.20 provides program-level
descriptive statistics for these
demographic variables in the GE
program dataset. The typical (median)
program has 6 percent completers that
are Black, 6 percent Hispanic, 0 percent
Asian (program mean is 3 percent), and
38 percent non-White. At the median
program, sixty-one percent are
independent, half are over the age 24,
and 31 percent are male. Half are firstgeneration college students and 77
percent have ever received a Pell Grant.
Average family income at time of first
FAFSA filing is $38,000 and the typical
student who is attached to the labor
force earns $29,900 before enrolling in
the program.
4.20—DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Programs
Share T4 Completers First Gen ......................................................................
Share T4 Completers Ever Pell .......................................................................
Share T4 Completers Out-of-State ..................................................................
Share of T4 Completers Male .........................................................................
Share of T4 Completers Age 24+ ...................................................................
Share T4 Completers Independent .................................................................
Share All Completions Non-White ...................................................................
Share All Completions Black ...........................................................................
Share All Completions Hispanic ......................................................................
Share All Completions Asian ...........................................................................
Age at Time of FAFSA ....................................................................................
FAFSA Family Income .....................................................................................
294 Specifically, the C2016A and C2017A datasets
available from the IPEDS data center. These cover
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
24,199
24,199
24,199
24,199
24,199
24,199
25,278
25,278
25,278
25,278
23,907
23,907
Median
50
77
0
31
50
61
38
6
6
0
26
38,137
the 2015–16 and 2016–17 academic years (July 1 to
June 30).
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Average
49
67
16
42
51
58
43
14
15
3
28
47,726
Std.
deviation
34
36
30
41
37
36
30
20
23
9
8
45,433
70142
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
4.20—DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES—Continued
Programs
Median Student Pre-Inc ...................................................................................
Student Demographics Descriptive
Analysis
17,599
programs separately by GE result.
Programs that fail at least one GE metric
have a higher share of students that are
female, higher share of students that are
Black or Hispanic, lower student and
Table 4.21 reports average
demographic characteristics of GE
Median
Std.
deviation
Average
29,908
38,585
32,806
family income, and higher share of
students that have ever received the Pell
grant. Average student age and
dependency status is similar for passing
and failing programs.
4.21—DEMOGRAPHIC SHARES BY RESULT
All
Share TIV Completers First Gen .................................................................................
Share TIV Completers Ever Pell .................................................................................
Share TIV Completers Out-of-State ............................................................................
Share of TIV Completers Male ....................................................................................
Share of TIV Completers Age 24+ ..............................................................................
Share TIV Completers Independent ............................................................................
Share All Completions Non-White ...............................................................................
Share All Completions Black .......................................................................................
Share All Completions Hispanic ..................................................................................
Share All Completions Asian .......................................................................................
Age at Time of FAFSA ................................................................................................
FAFSA Family Income .................................................................................................
Median Student Pre-Inc ...............................................................................................
49
67
16
42
51
58
43
14
15
3
28
47,700
38,600
Passing
48
66
15
44
51
58
42
13
15
3
28
48,600
39,600
Fail
(any)
61
80
21
21
49
59
56
22
22
4
27
35,900
29,200
Fails
D/E
Fails
EP
55
74
40
28
57
66
58
26
18
2
29
41,100
34,200
62
82
16
19
46
57
56
21
23
4
27
34,200
27,400
Note: Income values rounded to the nearest 100.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Student Demographics Regression
Analysis
One limitation of the descriptive
tabulations presented above is that it is
difficult to determine which factors,
whether they be demographics or
program characteristics, explain the
higher failure rate of programs serving
certain groups of students. To further
examine the relationship between
student demographics and program
results under the regulations, we
analyzed the degree to which specific
demographic characteristics might be
associated with a program’s annual D/E
rate and EP, while holding other
characteristics constant.
For this analysis, the Department
estimated the parameters of ordinary
least squares (OLS) linear regression
models with annual debt-to-earnings or
the earnings premium as the dependent
(outcome) variables and indicators of
student, program, and institutional
characteristics as independent
variables.295 The independent
demographic variables included in the
295 Though not shown below, we have conducted
parallel regression analysis with binary indicators
for whether the program fails the D/E metric and
whether it fails the EP metric as the outcomes.
Results are qualitatively similar to those reported
here using continuous outcomes, though the
amount of variation in these binary outcomes that
demographics explain is even more muted than that
reported here.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
regression analysis are: share of students
in different race and ethnicity
categories; share of students ever
receiving Pell Grants; share of students
that are male; share of students that are
first-generation college students; share
of students that are independent; and
average family income from student’s
FAFSA. Program and institutional
characteristics include credential level
and control (public, private nonprofit,
and proprietary). In some specifications
we include institution fixed effects and
omit control. When used with programlevel data, institutional fixed effects
control for any factors that differ
between institutions but are common
among programs in the same institution,
such as institutional leadership, pricing
strategy, and State or local factors.
Table 4.22 reports estimates from the
D/E rate regressions described above,
with each column representing a
different regression model that includes
different sets of independent variables.
Comparing the R-squared across
different columns demonstrates the
degree to which different factors explain
variation in the outcome. The first three
columns quantify the extent to which
variation in D/E rates are accounted for
by program and institutional
characteristics. The institutional control
alone (column 1) explains 22 percent of
the variation in D/E and adding
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
credential level increases the R-squared
to 33 percent (column 2). D/E rates are
2.5 to 3.9 percentage points higher for
private nonprofit and for-profit
institutions than public institutions (the
omitted baseline category) after
controlling for credential level. This
may reflect the much higher tuition
prices charged by private institutions,
which can result in higher debt service.
Graduate credential levels also have
much higher debt-to-earnings ratios
than undergraduate credentials,
reflecting the typically higher tuition
costs associated with graduate
programs.
Almost all programs are in
institutions with multiple GE programs,
so column 3 includes institution fixed
effects in place of indicators for
control.296 Credential level and
institution together account for 77
percent of the variation in D/E rates
across programs. To illustrate how
much more of the variation in outcomes
is accounted for by student
characteristics, column 4 adds the
demographic characteristics on top of
the model with credential level and
institution effects. Doing so only slightly
increases the model’s ability to account
for variation in D/E, lifting the R296 Only 4 percent of GE programs are the only
GE program within the institution. The median
number of programs within an institution is 18.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70143
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
squared to 79 percent. For example, this
specification effectively compares
programs with more Pell students to
those with fewer Pell students within
the same institution and same credential
level, while also controlling for the
other independent variables listed.
Demographic characteristics, therefore,
institutional pricing along with other
factors, are much more important.297
The final two columns report similar
models, but weighting by average title
IV, HEA enrollment, and the results are
qualitatively similar.
appear to explain little of the variation
in D/E rates across programs beyond
what can be predicted by institutional
characteristics and program credential
level. Evidently, institution- and
program-level factors, which could
include such things as institutional
performance and decisions about
4.22—REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES, GE PROGRAMS, OUTCOME: D/E
1
Private, Nonprofit ..................................
Proprietary .............................................
Credential Level:
UG Certificates ...............................
Associate ........................................
Master’s ..........................................
Doctoral ..........................................
Professional ...................................
Grad Certs .....................................
% Black .................................................
% Hispanic ............................................
% Asian .................................................
% Male ..................................................
% Ever Pell ...........................................
% First Generation ................................
% Independent ......................................
FAFSA Family Income ($1,000) ...........
Intercept ................................................
R-squared ..............................................
2
3
4
5
6
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
3.062 (0.305)
4.928 (0.110)
2.512 (0.263)
3.868 (0.101)
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
1.265 (0.064)
0.22
¥2.118 (0.207)
0.084 (0.251)
2.780 (0.769)
4.451 (0.809)
12.480 (3.696)
1.200 (0.596)
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
3.221 (0.217)
0.33
¥2.495 (0.603)
0.295 (0.449)
1.552 (0.591)
3.758 (1.096)
5.841 (1.002)
1.431 (1.748)
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
6.371 (0.468)
0.77
¥4.083
¥0.651
1.303
5.701
5.672
0.928
0.016
¥0.015
¥0.054
¥0.014
0.003
0.001
¥0.008
¥0.056
10.974
(0.618)
(0.426)
(0.479)
(1.051)
(1.387)
(1.679)
(0.009)
(0.011)
(0.028)
(0.002)
(0.012)
(0.008)
(0.005)
(0.013)
(1.618)
0.79
¥1.079 (0.654)
1.401 (0.651)
0.983 (0.719)
3.824 (1.469)
6.753 (0.850)
4.650 (2.577)
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
6.220 (0.423)
0.64
¥5.037
¥0.927
1.683
7.892
8.839
4.738
0.032
¥0.035
¥0.154
¥0.028
0.050
¥0.021
¥0.008
¥0.087
12.057
(0.594)
(0.427)
(0.563)
(1.235)
(1.547)
(2.415)
(0.016)
(0.017)
(0.043)
(0.004)
(0.017)
(0.015)
(0.008)
(0.014)
(2.079)
0.78
Notes: Specifications 3 to 6 include fixed effects for each six-digit OPEID number. Bachelor’s degree and public are the omitted categories for credential type and
control, respectively. Columns 5 and 6 weight programs by average title IV, HEA enrollment in AY16 and AY17.
Table 4.23 reports estimates from
identical regression models, but instead
using EP as the outcome. Again, each
column represents a different regression
model that includes different sets of
independent variables. Program and
institutional characteristics still matter
greatly to earnings outcomes.
Institutional effects and credential level
together explain 77 percent of the
variation in program-level earnings
outcomes (column 3). Adding
demographic variables explains an
additional 7 percentage points of the
variation in program-level earnings
(column 4). Note that the estimated
regression coefficients will likely
overstate the effect of the baseline
characteristics on outcomes if these
characteristics are correlated with
differences in program quality not
captured by the crude institution and
program characteristics included in the
regression.
4.23—REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES, GE PROGRAMS, OUTCOME: EP
[$1,000s]
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
1
Private, Nonprofit ..................................
Proprietary .............................................
Credential Level:
UG Certificates ...............................
Associate ........................................
Master’s ..........................................
Doctoral ..........................................
Professional ...................................
Grad Certs .....................................
% Black .................................................
% Hispanic ............................................
% Asian .................................................
% Male ..................................................
% Ever Pell ...........................................
% First Generation ................................
% Independent ......................................
FAFSA Family Income ($1,000) ...........
Intercept ................................................
R-squared ..............................................
2
3
4
5
6
8.923 (2.420)
¥4.475 (0.611)
1.461 (1.711)
¥10.632 (0.489)
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
11.267 (0.514)
0.03
¥18.507 (0.835)
¥6.708 (1.000)
11.357 (1.661)
32.585 (3.078)
41.422 (12.277)
23.756 (3.225)
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
27.745 (0.931)
0.42
¥17.315 (1.658)
¥8.647 (1.333)
11.083 (2.072)
33.356 (4.576)
58.755 (13.661)
13.475 (4.224)
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
20.126 (1.349)
0.77
¥7.634 (1.415)
¥3.698 (1.128)
7.159 (1.778)
20.948 (4.079)
44.702 (11.280)
11.475 (3.614)
¥0.116 (0.047)
¥0.081 (0.038)
0.487 (0.110)
0.099 (0.007)
¥0.158 (0.046)
¥0.052 (0.029)
0.146 (0.018)
0.168 (0.056)
9.874 (7.507)
0.84
¥20.963 (2.350)
¥11.169 (2.014)
11.594 (3.496)
27.749 (6.390)
66.316 (9.890)
7.105 (6.533)
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
22.128 (1.676)
0.71
¥0.592 (1.922)
¥0.219 (1.271)
8.787 (2.811)
9.854 (4.553)
43.113 (11.599)
7.995 (6.577)
¥0.201 (0.058)
0.015 (0.061)
1.376 (0.267)
0.096 (0.016)
¥0.094 (0.064)
¥0.006 (0.049)
0.200 (0.032)
0.439 (0.071)
¥20.312 (9.392)
0.87
Notes: Specifications 3 to 6 include fixed effects for each six-digit OPEID number. Bachelor’s degree and public are the omitted categories for credential type and
control, respectively. Columns 5 and 6 weight programs by average title IV, HEA enrollment in AY16 and AY17.
297 The patterns by race are broadly similar to
what was found in analysis of the 2014 final rule.
The coefficient on % Black in the final column
suggests that a 10-percentage point increase in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
percent of students that are black is associated with
a 0.15 higher debt-to-earnings ratio, holding
institution, credential level, and the other
demographic factors listed constant. Analysis of the
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
prior rule found an increase of 0.19, though the set
of controls is not the same.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70144
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Conclusions about the extent to which
different factors explain variation in
program outcomes can be sensitive to
the order in which factors are entered
into regressions. However, a variance
decomposition analysis (that is
insensitive to ordering) demonstrates
that program and institutional factors
explain the majority of the variance in
both the D/E and EP metrics across
programs when student characteristics
are also included.
Figure 4.3 provides another view,
demonstrating that many successful
programs exist and enroll similar shares
of low-income students. It shows the
distribution of raw Eps for
undergraduate certificate programs (the
y-axis is in $1,000s) grouped by the
average FAFSA family income of the
program. Programs are placed in 20
equally sized groups from lowest to
highest FAFSA family income.298 Each
dot represents an individual program.
The EP of the median program in each
income group, indicated by the large
black square, is clearly increasing,
reflecting the greater earnings
opportunities for students that come
from higher income families. However,
there is tremendous variation around
this median. Even among programs with
students that come from the lowest
income families, there are clearly
programs whose students go on to have
earnings success after program
completion. This graph demonstrates
that demographics are not destiny when
it comes to program performance.
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
$40
0
0
'I
$20
D
i
tE
Q
,.0,,"
$
9
r.·
I
Q
6
ii.
""O"
Q
0
0
o"
0
0
e
a
0
··l ...
0
0
6
Ii
I'll
0
9
Q
0
0
·-r
8
$0
e
0
-- ---
0
6 8
I
t
I
··t-t·t·· ·t
I;)'
e
@,
.. Q,
a
lll
'
1:1
-$20 ,,,0 ' t.
¢
-~-'
0
0
'•<•·· ,, $
0
$
Grou~.of FAFSA Famllyln@me
o Program
O
Group Median
Not&! E a ~ for hiQb sd100l'gractuates areuk:ulatl!d IJl!lll!l: the ~can Community Su!vt!Y as the median earnings of a high school
graduate agea 25-34 m the state. a11111n9 gra~tes wilb JlOSl!we earnings. The earnings premium is defined as the. a11111unt 11bove or below
the med.an eaf!li?gs for a high $11.ool. grailm.ate·in the state..Each. d.o~ represents a program and programs. are dMded nto Qfl?Ups_ based.
on average FAFSA family: income. Groups are filrmed by dividing.programs into 5'l{; groups froi:n lowestto hlghesUncomes l\'iglfltiles}.
Figure 4.3 Distribution of Earnings Premium by Family
Income, Certificate Programs
BILLING CODE 4000–01–C
Gender Differences
The analysis above showed that
programs failing the EP threshold have
a higher share of female students. In
Table 4.24, we show descriptively that
there are many programs that have
similar gender composition but have
much higher rates of passage than
programs in cosmetology and massage,
where failure rates are comparatively
higher. Other programs, such as
practical nursing and dental support,
are similar in terms of their gender and
racial balance but have much higher
passage rates.
Share of
programs
failing
Teacher Education ....................................................................
Share of all completers who are . . .
Black
women
0.066
0.226
Hispanic
women
0.165
Asian
women
Other
women
0.025
298 Since each of the 20 groups includes the same
number of programs, the income range varies across
groups.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
0.094
White
women
0.439
Women
(any race)
0.950
ER10OC23.006
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
TABLE 4.24—GENDER AND RACIAL COMPOSITION OF UNDERGRADUATE CERTIFICATE PROGRAMS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
70145
TABLE 4.24—GENDER AND RACIAL COMPOSITION OF UNDERGRADUATE CERTIFICATE PROGRAMS—Continued
Share of
programs
failing
Human Development ................................................................
Health & Medical Admin ...........................................................
Medical Assisting ......................................................................
Laboratory Science ...................................................................
Practical Nursing .......................................................................
Cosmetology .............................................................................
Dental Support ..........................................................................
Business Operations .................................................................
Business Administration ............................................................
Culinary Arts ..............................................................................
Somatic Bodywork ....................................................................
Accounting .................................................................................
Criminal Justice .........................................................................
Liberal Arts ................................................................................
Allied Health, Diagnostic ...........................................................
Information Technology (IT) Admin & Mgmt. ............................
Ground Transportation ..............................................................
Computer & Info Svcs ...............................................................
Precision Metal Working ...........................................................
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) ..................
Fire Protection ...........................................................................
Power Transmission ..................................................................
Vehicle Maintenance .................................................................
Environment Ctrl Tech ..............................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Conclusions of Student Demographic
Analysis
On several dimensions, programs that
have higher enrollment of underserved
students have worse outcomes—lower
completion, higher default, and lower
post-college earnings levels—due to a
myriad of challenges these students
face, including fewer financial resources
and structural discrimination in the
labor market.299 And yet, there is
evidence that some institutions
aggressively recruited vulnerable
students—at times with deceptive
marketing and fraudulent data—into
programs without sufficient
institutional support and instructional
investment, placing students at risk for
having high debt burdens and low
earnings.300 Nonetheless, our analysis
demonstrates that GE programs that fail
the metrics have particularly bad
outcomes that are not explained by
student demographics alone.
299 Blau, Francine D. & Kahn, Lawrence M.
(2017). The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and
Explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 55
(3): 789–865. Hillman, N.W. (2014). College on
Credit: A Multilevel Analysis of Student Loan
Default. Review of Higher Education, 37(2), 169–
195. Pager, D., Western, B. & Bonikowski, B. (2009).
Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market: A
Field Experiment. American Sociological Review,
74, 777–799.
300 Cottom, T.M. (2017). Lower Ed: The Troubling
Rise of For-Profit Colleges in the New Economy.
Government Accountability Office (2010). For-Profit
Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges
Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and
Questionable Marketing Practices. U.S. Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions (2012). For Profit Higher Education: The
Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and
Ensure Student Success.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Share of all completers who are . . .
Black
women
0.019
0.441
0.535
0.211
0.034
0.789
0.428
0.257
0.001
0.148
0.619
0.071
0.039
0.038
0.015
0.046
0.005
0.074
0.041
0.025
0.000
0.021
0.018
0.007
0.216
0.209
0.171
0.163
0.154
0.150
0.146
0.142
0.128
0.123
0.102
0.096
0.072
0.049
0.046
0.044
0.041
0.030
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
Hispanic
women
0.284
0.171
0.292
0.138
0.134
0.191
0.300
0.166
0.090
0.148
0.127
0.141
0.079
0.205
0.089
0.021
0.007
0.078
0.007
0.003
0.019
0.006
0.011
0.007
Furthermore, alternative programs with
similar student characteristics but
where students have better outcomes
exist and serve as good options for
students that would otherwise attend
low-performing programs. We quantify
the extent of these alternative options
more directly in the next section. The
GE rule aims to protect students from
low-value programs and steer them to
programs that would be greater engines
of upward economic mobility.
Alternative Options Exist for Students
To Enroll in High-Value Programs
Measuring Students’ Alternative
Options
One concern with limiting title IV,
HEA eligibility for low-performing GE
programs is that such measures could
reduce postsecondary opportunities for
some students. The Department
conducted an analysis to estimate the
short-term alternative options that are
available to students that might, in the
absence of these regulations, enroll in
failing programs. The scope of
alternative options in the longer term is
likely to be broader than the results of
this analysis, as other institutions can
expand their program offerings and
failing programs can improve their
performance.
Students deterred from attending a
specific program because of a loss of
title IV, HEA aid eligibility at that
program have several potential
alternatives. For programs that are part
of a multi-program institution, many
may choose to remain at the same
institution, but attend a different
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Asian
women
Other
women
0.039
0.029
0.030
0.030
0.033
0.051
0.025
0.020
0.018
0.019
0.029
0.060
0.004
0.043
0.016
0.009
0.003
0.012
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.063
0.086
0.067
0.079
0.067
0.059
0.064
0.057
0.058
0.060
0.079
0.067
0.027
0.055
0.034
0.029
0.007
0.017
0.005
0.001
0.005
0.003
0.006
0.005
White
women
0.366
0.442
0.317
0.434
0.498
0.451
0.384
0.395
0.308
0.249
0.418
0.361
0.151
0.262
0.309
0.081
0.034
0.113
0.036
0.012
0.058
0.019
0.027
0.018
Women
(any race)
0.968
0.938
0.876
0.843
0.886
0.902
0.920
0.781
0.601
0.598
0.754
0.725
0.333
0.613
0.494
0.183
0.092
0.250
0.058
0.025
0.091
0.035
0.052
0.036
program in a related subject that did not
lose access to title IV, HEA aid and,
therefore, likely offers better outcomes
for students in terms of student debt,
earnings, or both. Some would stay in
their local area and attend a nearby
institution that offers a program in the
same or related subject. Still others
would attend an institution further
away, but perhaps in the same State or
online.301 In order to identify
geographical regions where the easiest
potential transfer options exist, we used
the 3-digit ZIP code (ZIP3) in which
each institution is located. Three-digit
zip codes designate the processing and
distribution center of the United States
Postal Service that serves a given
geographic area. For each combination
of ZIP3, CIP code, and credential level,
we determined the number of programs
available and the number of programs
that would pass both the D/E and EP
rates measures. Since programs that do
not fail due to insufficient n-size to
compute D/E and EP rates represent real
options for students at failing programs,
we include these programs in our
calculations. Importantly, we also
include all non-GE programs at public
and private nonprofit institutions.302
301 Two other possibilities, which we include in
our simulation of budget impacts, is that students
continue to enroll in programs without receiving
title IV, HEA aid or decline to enroll altogether.
302 Since the 2022 PPD are aggregated to each
combination of the six-digit OPEID, four-digit CIP
code, and credential level, we do not have precise
data on geographic location. For example, a
program can have multiple branch locations in
different cities and States. At some of these
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
Continued
10OCR2
70146
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Our characterization of programs by the
number of alternative options available
is also used in the simulations of
enrollment shifts that underlie the
budget impact and cost, benefit, and
transfer estimates, which we describe
later.
Table 4.25 reports the distribution of
the number of transfer options available
to the students who would otherwise
attend GE programs that fail at least one
of the two metrics. We present estimates
for four different ways of
conceptualizing and measuring these
transfer options. We assume students
have more flexibility over the specific
field and institution attended than
credential level, so all four measures
assume students remain in the same
credential level. While not captured in
this analysis, it is possible that some
students would pursue a credential at a
higher level in the same field, thereby
further increasing their available
options. Half of students in failing GE
programs (in 41 percent of failing
programs) have at least one alternative
non-failing program of the same
credential level at the same institution,
but in a related field (as indicated by
being in the same 2-digit CIP code).
More than a quarter have more than one
additional option. Two-thirds of
students (at 60 percent of the failing
programs) have a transfer option passing
the GE measures within the same
geographic area (ZIP3), credential level,
and narrow field (4-digit CIP code).
More than 90 percent of students have
at least one transfer option within the
same geographic area and credential
level when the field is broadened to
include programs in the same 2-digit
CIP code. Finally, all students have at
least one transfer option in the same
State, credential level, and 2-digit CIP
code. While this last measure includes
options that may not be viable for
currently enrolled students—requiring
moving across the State or attending
virtually—it does suggest that at least
some options are available for all
students, both current and prospective,
who would otherwise attend failing GE
programs.
TABLE 4.25—SHARE OF PROGRAMS AND ENROLLMENT IN FAILING GE PROGRAMS, BY NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
Same
institution,
cred level,
CIP2
A. Programs Transfer options:
1 or more ..................................................................................................
5 or more ..................................................................................................
B. Enrollment Transfer options:
1 or more ..................................................................................................
5 or more ..................................................................................................
Table 4.26 repeats this analysis for
non-GE programs with at least one
failing GE metric. Students considering
non-GE programs with D/E or EP
metrics that do not meet Department
standards may choose to enroll
Same Zip3,
cred level
CIP4
Same Zip3,
cred level,
CIP2
Same state,
cred level,
CIP2
0.41
0.03
0.60
0.03
0.88
0.50
1.00
0.96
0.50
0.03
0.65
0.04
0.91
0.53
1.00
0.95
elsewhere. More than half of students at
failing non-GE programs have a nonfailing program in the same 4-digit CIP
code, credential level, and geographic
area that they could choose to enroll in.
This share approaches three-quarters if
the field is broadened to include
programs in the same two-digit CIP
code. Therefore, while the alternative
options for non-GE programs are not as
numerous as for GE programs, the
number of alternatives is still quite high.
TABLE 4.26—SHARE OF PROGRAMS AND ENROLLMENT IN FAILING NON-GE PROGRAMS, BY NUMBER OF TRANSFER
OPTIONS
Same
institution,
cred level,
CIP2
Level
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
A. Programs Transfer options:
1 or more ..................................................................................................
5 or more ..................................................................................................
B. Enrollment Transfer options:
1 or more ..................................................................................................
5 or more ..................................................................................................
Same Zip3,
cred level,
CIP4
Same Zip3,
cred level,
CIP2
Same state,
cred level,
CIP2
0.54
0.12
0.47
0.05
0.80
0.40
0.99
0.95
0.37
0.08
0.49
0.05
0.71
0.29
0.99
0.93
This analysis likely understates the
transfer options available to students for
three reasons. First, as stated above, it
does not consider programs of a
different credential level. For example,
students who would have pursued a
certificate program might opt for an
associate degree program that shows
higher earnings. Second, it does not
consider the growth of online/distance
education programs now available in
most fields of study, from both
traditional schools and primarily online institutions.
Third, we do not consider non-title
IV, HEA institutions. Undergraduate
certificate programs in cosmetology
represent the largest group of programs
without nearby passing options in the
same four-digit CIP code, in large part
because many of these programs do not
pass the GE metrics. Nonetheless, recent
data from California and Texas suggest
that many students successfully pass
locations, the program could be offered as an online
program while other locations offer only in-person
programs. Each of these locations would present as
a single program in our data set without detail
regarding precise location or format. We do not
possess more detailed geographic information that
would allow us to address this issue, so we
recognize that our analysis of geographic scope and
alternatives may be incomplete and cause us to
understate the number of options students have.
Nonetheless, the vast majority of alternative options
will be captured in our analysis.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
licensure exams after completing nontitle IV, HEA programs in
cosmetology.303 Non-title IV, HEA
cosmetology schools operate in almost
all counties in Texas.304 In Florida, nontitle IV, HEA cosmetology schools have
similar licensure pass rates but much
lower tuition.305
Potential Alternative Programs Have
Better Outcomes Than Failing Programs
A key motivation for more
accountability via this rule is to steer
students to higher value programs. As
mentioned previously, research has
shown that when an institution closed
after failing accountability measures
based on Cohort Default Rates, students
were diverted to schools with better
outcomes.306 The Department
conducted an analysis of the possible
earnings impact of students shifting
from programs that fail one of the GE
metrics to similar programs that do not
fail. For each failing program, we
computed the average program-level
median earnings of non-failing programs
included in the failing program’s
transfer options, which we refer to as
‘‘Alternative Program Earnings.’’
Earnings were weighted by average title
IV, HEA enrollment in award years 2016
and 2017. Alternative options were
determined in the same way as
described above. In computing
Alternative Program Earnings, priority
was first given to passing programs in
the same institution, credential level,
and two-digit CIP code if such programs
exist and have valid earnings. This
assigned Alternative Program Earnings
for 20 percent of failing programs. Next
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
303 In California, 55 percent of individuals
passing either the practical or written components
of the licensure test are from title IV, HEA schools
according to Department analysis using licensing
exam data retrieved from www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/
schools/schls_rslts.shtml on December 7, 2022.
304 Cellini, S.R. & Onwukwe, B. (Aug. 2022).
Cosmetology Schools Everywhere: Most
Cosmetology Schools Exist Outside of the Federal
Student Aid System. Postsecondary Equity &
Economics Research Project working paper.
305 Cellini, S.R. & Goldin, C. (2014). Does Federal
Student Aid Raise Tuition? New Evidence on ForProfit Colleges. American Economic Journal:
Economic Policy, 6(4), 174–206.
306 Cellini, S.R., Darolia, R. & Turner, L.J. (2020).
Where Do Students Go When For-Profit Colleges
Lose Federal Aid? American Economic Journal:
Economic Policy, 12(2): 46–83.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
priority was given to programs in the
same ZIP3, credential level, and fourdigit CIP code, which assigned
Alternative Program Earnings for 8
percent of programs. Next was programs
in the same ZIP3, credential level, and
two-digit CIP code, which assigned
Alternative Program Earnings for 14
percent of programs. We did not use the
earnings of programs outside the ZIP3 to
assign Alternative Program Earnings
given the wage differences across
regions. It was not possible to compute
the earnings of alternative options for
the remaining 59 percent of programs
primarily because the available options
in those instances have insufficient
number of completers to report median
earnings (47 percent) or because they
did not have alternative options in the
same ZIP3 (12 percent). For these
programs, we set the Alternative
Program Earnings equal to the median
earnings of high school graduates in the
State (the same value used to determine
the ET). The percent increase in
earnings associated with moving from a
failing program to a passing program
was computed as the difference between
a program’s Alternative Program
Earnings and its own median earnings,
divided by its own median earnings. We
set this earnings gain measure to 100
percent in the small number of cases
where the median program earnings are
zero or the ratio is greater than 100
percent.
Table 4.27 reports the estimated
percent difference in earnings between
alternative program options and failing
programs, separately by two-digit CIP
and credential level. Across all subjects,
the difference in earnings at passing
undergraduate certificate programs and
failing programs is about 50 percent.
This is unsurprising, given that the EP
metric explicitly identifies programs
with low earnings, which in practice are
primarily certificate programs.
Encouragingly, many passing programs
exist in the same subject, level, and
market that result in much higher
earnings than programs that fail. Failing
associate degree programs also have
similar non-failing programs with much
higher earnings. Earnings differences are
still sizable and positive, though not
quite as large for higher credentials.
Passing GE bachelor’s degree programs
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70147
have 31 percent higher earnings than
bachelor’s degree programs that fail the
GE metrics.
Table 4.28 reports similar estimates
for non-GE programs. The earnings
difference between failing and passing
non-GE programs is more modest than
for GE programs, but still significant: 21
percent across all credential levels,
ranging from close to zero for Doctoral
programs to 30 percent for bachelor’s
degree programs.
We use a similar process to compute
the percent change in average programlevel median debt between failing GE or
non-GE programs and alternative
programs.307 Tables 4.29 and 4.30 report
the percent change in debt between
alternative program options and failing
programs, separately by two-digit CIP
and credential level. Across all subjects
and credential levels, debt is 22 percent
lower at alternative programs than at
failing GE programs. Large differences
in debt are seen at all degree levels
(other than professional), with modest
differences for undergraduate certificate
programs. At non-GE programs, there is
no aggregate debt difference between
failing programs and their alternatives,
though this masks heterogeneity across
credential levels. For graduate degree
programs, relative to failing programs,
alternative programs have lower debt
levels, with the differences (the percent
difference in debt between alternative
and failing programs) ranging from 24
percent (Professional programs) to 35
percent (Doctoral programs). Failing
associate degree programs have debt
that is 12 percent higher than in passing
programs.
While these differences do not
necessarily provide a completely
accurate estimate of the actual earnings
gain or debt reduction that students
would experience by shifting programs,
they suggest alternative options exist
that provide better financial outcomes
than programs that fail the D/E and EP
metrics.
307 The only exception being that we use the debt
for alternative programs in the same credential
level, same two-digit CIP code, and State to impute
alternative program debt if such a program is not
available or calculable in students’ ZIP3. This is
because there is no other natural benchmark debt
level analogous to the ET used to compute
alternative program earnings.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70148
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4.27—PERCENT EARNINGS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRANSFER OPTIONS AND FAILING GE PROGRAMS, BY CIP AND
CREDENTIAL LEVEL
Credential level
cip2
UG
certificates
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Doctoral
Professional
Grad
certs
Total
Associate
1 ...........................................................
3 ...........................................................
9 ...........................................................
10 .........................................................
11 .........................................................
12 .........................................................
13 .........................................................
14 .........................................................
15 .........................................................
16 .........................................................
19 .........................................................
22 .........................................................
23 .........................................................
24 .........................................................
25 .........................................................
26 .........................................................
30 .........................................................
31 .........................................................
32 .........................................................
39 .........................................................
42 .........................................................
43 .........................................................
44 .........................................................
45 .........................................................
46 .........................................................
47 .........................................................
48 .........................................................
49 .........................................................
50 .........................................................
51 .........................................................
52 .........................................................
54 .........................................................
......................
......................
0.12
0.42
0.48
0.53
0.38
......................
0.14
......................
0.65
0.33
0.57
0.06
......................
......................
......................
0.51
0.32
0.40
......................
0.22
......................
......................
0.40
0.39
0.25
0.77
0.38
0.51
0.50
......................
................
................
................
0.19
0.26
0.12
0.34
¥0.01
¥0.10
................
0.29
¥0.03
¥0.07
................
................
................
0.15
¥0.00
................
................
................
0.19
0.04
................
................
0.14
................
................
0.22
0.83
0.31
................
....................
¥0.18
0.24
¥0.01
0.79
¥0.18
0.13
¥0.36
....................
¥0.03
0.13
¥0.04
0.38
....................
¥0.03
....................
¥0.07
....................
....................
¥0.03
0.06
0.24
0.43
0.23
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.27
0.75
0.61
¥0.13
................
................
0.24
¥0.38
¥0.62
................
0.46
................
................
................
¥0.28
................
¥0.09
................
................
................
................
................
................
¥0.20
0.25
0.41
0.62
¥0.24
................
................
................
................
0.46
0.87
0.22
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.18
................
................
................
¥0.55
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
¥0.52
¥0.56
0.46
................
................
................
................
................
................
¥0.30
0.34
................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
0.22
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
¥0.06
......................
......................
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
1.00
¥0.04
..............
..............
..............
..............
¥0.60
..............
..............
..............
¥0.32
¥0.34
..............
..............
..............
¥0.34
..............
¥0.50
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
0.08
0.20
..............
..............
¥0.18
0.17
0.07
0.45
0.52
0.21
¥0.19
0.11
¥0.03
0.11
0.00
0.44
0.06
¥0.03
¥0.32
¥0.04
0.09
0.32
0.04
¥0.04
0.21
0.37
0.06
0.40
0.33
0.25
0.77
0.29
0.60
0.38
¥0.13
Total ..............................................
0.50
0.47
0.30
0.54
¥0.40
¥0.03
¥0.11
0.43
TABLE 4.28—PERCENT EARNINGS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRANSFER OPTIONS AND FAILING NON-GE PROGRAMS, BY CIP
AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL
Credential level
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
cip2
Total
1 .......................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................
4 .......................................................................................
5 .......................................................................................
9 .......................................................................................
10 .....................................................................................
11 .....................................................................................
12 .....................................................................................
13 .....................................................................................
15 .....................................................................................
16 .....................................................................................
19 .....................................................................................
22 .....................................................................................
23 .....................................................................................
24 .....................................................................................
26 .....................................................................................
30 .....................................................................................
31 .....................................................................................
38 .....................................................................................
39 .....................................................................................
40 .....................................................................................
41 .....................................................................................
42 .....................................................................................
43 .....................................................................................
44 .....................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Associate
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Doctoral
Professional
0.31
....................
....................
....................
0.12
0.14
0.36
0.25
0.22
0.83
0.03
0.18
0.00
0.38
0.15
0.13
0.12
0.10
¥0.05
0.55
....................
0.08
0.31
0.19
0.21
0.12
0.38
....................
0.02
0.24
¥0.01
1.00
....................
0.32
....................
0.43
0.40
¥0.08
0.23
0.10
0.28
0.06
0.22
¥0.10
0.49
0.58
....................
0.04
¥0.04
¥0.16
....................
¥0.14
¥0.31
....................
¥0.02
....................
....................
....................
0.21
....................
....................
¥0.42
¥0.26
¥0.18
¥0.54
0.16
¥0.17
¥0.22
....................
¥0.02
....................
....................
¥0.24
0.06
¥0.08
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
¥0.12
....................
....................
....................
¥0.59
....................
....................
¥0.70
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
¥0.35
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
¥0.07
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.20
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Frm 00146
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
0.16
0.31
¥0.31
0.02
0.20
0.11
0.40
0.25
0.23
0.83
0.40
0.27
¥0.13
0.20
0.14
0.22
0.07
0.18
¥0.07
0.38
0.58
0.08
0.07
0.09
0.10
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
70149
TABLE 4.28—PERCENT EARNINGS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRANSFER OPTIONS AND FAILING NON-GE PROGRAMS, BY CIP
AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL—Continued
Credential level
cip2
45
47
50
51
52
54
Total
Associate
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Doctoral
Professional
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
0.09
0.38
0.23
0.62
0.15
....................
0.47
....................
0.40
0.78
0.48
0.06
¥0.12
....................
0.31
0.57
0.72
¥0.19
....................
....................
¥0.29
0.26
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.11
....................
....................
0.23
0.38
0.37
0.46
0.22
¥0.09
Total ..........................................................................
0.22
0.27
0.26
0.07
0.04
0.21
TABLE 4.29—PERCENT DEBT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRANSFER OPTIONS AND FAILING GE PROGRAMS, BY CIP AND
CREDENTIAL LEVEL
Credential level
cip2
UG
certificates
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Doctoral
Professional
Grad
certs
Total
Associate
1 .............................................................
3 .............................................................
9 .............................................................
10 ...........................................................
11 ...........................................................
12 ...........................................................
13 ...........................................................
14 ...........................................................
15 ...........................................................
16 ...........................................................
19 ...........................................................
22 ...........................................................
23 ...........................................................
24 ...........................................................
25 ...........................................................
26 ...........................................................
30 ...........................................................
31 ...........................................................
32 ...........................................................
39 ...........................................................
42 ...........................................................
43 ...........................................................
44 ...........................................................
45 ...........................................................
46 ...........................................................
47 ...........................................................
48 ...........................................................
49 ...........................................................
50 ...........................................................
51 ...........................................................
52 ...........................................................
54 ...........................................................
0.00
....................
0.06
0.15
0.21
¥0.23
¥0.28
....................
¥0.10
....................
¥0.05
1.00
0.00
0.00
....................
....................
....................
¥0.83
0.00
0.59
....................
¥0.57
....................
....................
0.07
0.05
¥0.21
0.33
0.21
0.01
¥0.14
....................
................
................
................
0.63
¥0.36
¥0.49
¥0.89
0.01
¥0.69
................
¥0.26
¥0.60
¥0.82
................
................
................
¥0.91
¥0.75
................
................
................
¥0.70
¥0.74
................
................
¥0.24
................
................
¥0.59
¥0.16
¥0.42
................
....................
¥0.65
¥0.26
¥0.32
¥0.23
0.13
¥0.31
¥0.58
....................
¥0.52
¥0.24
¥0.26
¥0.33
....................
....................
....................
¥0.54
....................
....................
....................
¥0.49
¥0.42
¥0.09
¥0.11
....................
....................
....................
....................
¥0.33
¥0.39
¥0.33
¥0.22
................
................
¥0.01
................
¥0.79
................
¥0.36
................
................
................
¥0.30
................
0.00
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
¥0.20
¥0.10
¥0.32
................
................
................
................
................
¥0.23
¥0.48
¥0.17
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
¥0.18
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
¥0.16
................
¥0.38
................
................
................
................
................
................
¥0.64
¥0.17
................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
¥0.40
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
0.60
......................
......................
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
0.00
¥0.20
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
¥0.25
..............
..............
..............
..............
¥0.77
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
¥0.43
¥0.27
..............
0.00
¥0.65
¥0.04
¥0.15
¥0.14
¥0.23
¥0.39
¥0.30
¥0.17
¥0.52
¥0.23
¥0.47
¥0.18
0.00
..............
¥0.25
¥0.58
¥0.80
0.00
0.59
¥0.35
¥0.53
¥0.23
¥0.11
0.07
0.00
¥0.21
0.33
¥0.31
¥0.10
¥0.35
¥0.22
Total ................................................
¥0.10
¥0.38
¥0.36
¥0.36
¥0.22
0.48
¥0.34
¥0.22
TABLE 4.30—PERCENT DEBT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRANSFER OPTIONS AND FAILING NON-GE PROGRAMS, BY CIP AND
CREDENTIAL LEVEL
Credential level
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
2-digit CIP code
Total
1 .......................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................
4 .......................................................................................
5 .......................................................................................
9 .......................................................................................
10 .....................................................................................
11 .....................................................................................
12 .....................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Associate
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Doctoral
Professional
¥0.37
....................
....................
....................
0.64
¥0.19
¥0.29
0.08
¥0.14
0.02
....................
¥0.12
¥0.22
¥0.11
¥0.42
....................
....................
¥0.53
¥0.35
....................
¥0.37
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Frm 00147
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
¥0.19
¥0.06
¥0.35
¥0.12
¥0.13
¥0.18
¥0.30
0.08
70150
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4.30—PERCENT DEBT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRANSFER OPTIONS AND FAILING NON-GE PROGRAMS, BY CIP AND
CREDENTIAL LEVEL—Continued
Credential level
2-digit CIP code
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
13
15
16
19
22
23
24
26
30
31
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
47
50
51
52
54
Total
Associate
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Doctoral
Professional
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
0.24
0.22
¥0.27
0.07
¥0.55
0.19
0.19
0.78
¥0.15
0.80
....................
¥0.67
....................
....................
0.33
¥0.22
¥0.26
¥0.08
0.21
0.25
0.01
¥0.15
....................
¥0.13
....................
0.19
0.21
¥0.28
¥0.04
¥0.10
0.11
¥0.16
¥0.22
¥0.26
¥0.03
1.00
....................
¥0.11
¥0.30
¥0.23
¥0.19
....................
¥0.02
¥0.03
¥0.26
0.39
¥0.30
....................
....................
¥0.39
....................
¥0.33
....................
¥0.28
0.00
....................
....................
¥0.29
....................
....................
¥0.04
¥0.19
¥0.16
¥0.53
....................
¥0.28
¥0.09
¥0.09
¥0.79
¥0.03
....................
....................
....................
¥0.16
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
¥0.17
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
¥0.38
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
¥0.26
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.00
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
¥0.22
....................
....................
0.05
0.22
0.15
0.14
¥0.28
¥0.04
0.16
0.16
¥0.15
0.12
¥0.26
¥0.10
1.00
....................
¥0.03
¥0.25
¥0.24
¥0.18
0.21
¥0.01
¥0.11
¥0.17
0.10
Total ..........................................................................
0.12
¥0.07
¥0.19
¥0.32
¥0.23
0.02
Transfer Causes Net Enrollment Increase
in Some Sectors
The aggregate change in enrollment
overall, by sector, and by institution
would likely be less than that implied
by the program- and institution-level
results presented in the ‘‘Results of GE
Accountability’’ section above because
those do not consider that many
students would likely transfer to passing
programs or even remain enrolled at
failing programs in response to a
program losing title IV, HEA eligibility.
The Department simulated the likely
destinations of students enrolled in
failing GE programs. Based on the
research literature and described more
fully in ‘‘Student Response
Assumptions’’ subsection in Section 5
below, we use assumptions about the
share of students that transfer to another
program, remain enrolled in the original
program, or drop out entirely if a
program loses title IV, HEA eligibility.
These student mobility assumptions
differ according to the number of
alternative options that exist and are the
same assumptions used in the Net
Budget Impact section.
Using these assumptions, for every
failing GE program, we estimate the title
IV, HEA enrollment from that program
that would remain, dropout, or transfer
to another program. Our notion of
‘‘transfers’’ includes both current
students and future students who attend
an alternative program instead of one
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
that fails the GE metrics. The number of
transfers is then reallocated to specific
other non-failing GE and non-GE
programs in the same institution
(OPEID6), credential level, and 2-digit
CIP code. If multiple such programs
exist, transfer enrollment is allocated
based on the share of initial title IV,
HEA enrollment in these programs. If no
alternative options exist using this
approach, the transfer enrollment is
allocated to non-failing GE and non-GE
programs in the same geographic area
(ZIP3), credential level, and 4-digit CIP
code. Again, initial title IV, HEA
enrollment shares are used to allocate
transfer enrollment if multiple such
alternative programs exist. These two
approaches reallocate approximately 80
percent of the transfer enrollments we
would expect from failing GE programs.
Finally, new title IV, HEA enrollment is
computed for each program that sums
existing enrollment (or retained
enrollment, in the case of failing GE
programs) and the allocated transfer
enrollment.
Table 4.31 summarizes these
simulation results, separately by type of
institution.308 Without accounting for
transfers or students remaining in
failing GE programs, aggregate title IV,
HEA enrollment drops by 715,200 (3.7
308 Programs at foreign institutions are excluded
from Table 4.31 as they do not have an institutional
type.
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
percent), with at least some enrollment
declines in all sectors. This will greatly
overstate the actual enrollment decline
associated with the regulation because it
assumes that students leave
postsecondary education in response to
their program failing a GE metric. The
final column simulates enrollment after
accounting for transfers within
institution (to similar programs) and to
similar programs at other geographically
proximate institutions, along with
permitting some modest enrollment
retention at failing programs. In this
scenario, aggregate enrollment declines
by only 231,000 (1.2 percent) due to the
rule.309 Importantly, some sectors
experience an enrollment increase as
students transfer from failing to passing
programs. For instance, public 2-year
community colleges are simulated to
experience a 30,000-student enrollment
increase once transfers are accounted for
rather than a 30,000-student decrease
when they are not. HBCUs are simulated
to gain 1,200 students rather than lose
700.
309 Note that since many failing programs result
in earnings lower than those of the typical high
school graduate, students leaving postsecondary
education still may be better off financially
compared to staying in a failing program.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70151
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4.31—ENROLLMENT WITH AND WITHOUT TRANSFERS, BY SECTOR
Number of
inst.
Initial
enrollment
No transfers or
retention
+ within institution CIP2
transfers
+ within
ZIP3–CIP4
transfers
Sector of institution:
Public, 4-year + ........................................................................
Private not-for-profit, 4-year + ..................................................
Private for-profit, 4-year + ........................................................
Public, 2-year ............................................................................
Private not-for-profit, 2-year ......................................................
Private for-profit, 2-year ............................................................
Public, <2-year ..........................................................................
Private not-for-profit, <2-year ...................................................
Private for-profit, <2-year ..........................................................
....................
700
1,400
200
900
100
300
200
<50
1,000
....................
8,186,900
4,002,400
1,298,900
5,025,200
97,200
290,900
42,600
11,600
278,400
........................
8,179,700
3,994,500
951,100
4,995,600
74,900
195,600
41,300
6,200
85,700
......................
8,184,900
3,999,200
1,147,900
5,013,300
91,200
250,600
42,100
8,300
151,100
......................
8,208,800
4,004,500
1,155,900
5,054,900
92,100
255,900
46,200
8,500
178,200
Total ...................................................................................
4,900
19,234,100
18,524,500
18,888,500
19,004,900
Note: Enrollment counts have been rounded to the nearest 100.
5. Discussion of Costs, Benefits, and
Transfers
Description of Baseline
In absence of the final regulations,
many students enroll in low-financialvalue programs where they either end
up not being able to secure a job that
leads to higher earnings, take on
unmanageable debt, or both. Many of
these students default on their student
loans, with negative consequences for
their credit and financial security and at
substantial costs to the taxpayers. Many
students with insufficient earnings to
repay their debts would be eligible to
have their payments reduced and
eventually have their loans forgiven
through income-driven repayment
(IDR). This shields low-income
borrowers from the consequences of
unaffordable debts but shifts the
financial burden onto taxpayers.
We have considered the primary
costs, benefits, and transfers for the
following groups or entities that will be
affected by the final regulations:
• Students
• Institutions
• State and local governments
• The Federal Government
We first discuss the anticipated
benefits of the final regulations,
including improved market information.
We then assess the expected costs and
transfers for students, institutions, the
Federal Government, and State and
local governments. Table 5.1 below
summarizes the major benefits, costs,
and transfers and whether they are
quantified in our analysis or not.
TABLE 5.1—SUMMARY OF COSTS, BENEFITS, AND TRANSFERS FOR FINANCIAL VALUE TRANSPARENCY AND GAINFUL
EMPLOYMENT FINAL REGULATIONS
Students
Institutions
State and local governments
Federal government
Benefits
Quantified ..............
Not quantified ........
Earnings gain from shift to higher
value programs.
Lower rates of default, higher
rates of family & business formation, higher retirement savings, saving of opportunity cost
for non-enrollees.
.......................................................
State tax revenue from higher
earnings.
Federal tax revenue from higher
earnings.
Additional spending at institutions
that absorb students from failing programs.
Implementation of data collection
and information website.
.......................................................
Aid money from failing programs
to govt for non-enrollments.
Aid money from failing programs
to State govt for non-enrollments.
Increased loan payments associated with less IDR forgiveness
and fewer defaults.
Increased enrollment and revenue
associated with new enrollments from improved information about value; improvements
in program quality.
Costs
Quantified ..............
Time for acknowledgment ............
Time for acknowledgment ............
Not quantified ........
Time, logistics, credit loss associated with program transfer.
Investments to improve program
quality; decreased enrollment
and revenue associated with
fewer new enrollments from improved information about value.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Transfers
Quantified ..............
.......................................................
Not quantified ........
Increased loan payments associated with less IDR forgiveness.
Benefits
We expect the primary benefits of
both the accountability and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Aid money from failing programs
to govt for non-enrollments; aid
money from failing to bettervalue programs for transfers.
Aid money from failing programs
to State govt for non-enrollments.
transparency components of the final
regulation to derive from a shift of
students from low-value to high-value
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
programs or, in some cases, a shift away
from low-value postsecondary programs
to non-enrollment. This shift will be
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70152
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
due to improved and standardized
market information about GE and nonGE programs. This will increase the
transparency of student outcomes for
better decision-making by current
students, prospective students, and their
families; the public, taxpayers, and the
Government; and institutions.
Furthermore, the accountability
component should improve program
quality by directly eliminating the
ability of low-value GE programs to
participate in the title IV, HEA
programs. Finally, both the transparency
and accountability provisions of the rule
should lead to a more competitive
postsecondary market that encourages
improvement, thereby, improving the
outcomes and/or reducing the cost of
existing programs that continue to
enroll students.
Benefits to Students
Under the final regulation, students,
prospective students, and their families
will have extensive, comparable, and
reliable information about the outcomes
of students who enroll in GE and nonGE programs such as cost, debt,
earnings, completion, and repayment
outcomes. This information should
assist them in choosing institutions and
programs where they believe they are
most likely to complete their education
and achieve the earnings they desire,
while having debt that is manageable.
This information should result in more
informed decisions based on reliable
information about a program’s
outcomes.
Students will potentially benefit from
this information via higher earnings,
lower costs and less debt, and better
program quality. This can happen
through three channels. First, students
benefit by transferring to passing
programs. Second, efforts to improve
programs should lead to better labor
market outcomes, such as improved job
prospects and higher earnings, by
offering better student services, working
with employers so graduates have
needed skills, improving program
quality, and helping students with
career planning. This may happen as
institutions improve programs to avoid
failing the D/E or EP measures or simply
from programs competing more for
students based on quality, with the rule
providing greater transparency about
program quality. As a result of these
enrollment shifts, students who
graduate with manageable debts and
adequate earnings should be more likely
to pay back their loans, marry, buy a
home, and invest in their futures.310
310 Chakrabarti, R., Fos, V., Liberman, A. &
Yannelis, C. (2020). Tuition, Debt, and Human
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Finally, some students that chose not to
enroll in low-value programs will save
opportunity costs by not investing their
time in programs that do not lead to
good outcomes. While these other
factors are certainly important to
student wellbeing, our analysis focuses
on the improvement in earnings
associated with a shift from low-value
programs to higher value programs.
Benefits to Institutions
Institutions offering high-performing
programs to students are likely to see
growing enrollment and revenue and to
benefit from additional market
information that permits institutions to
demonstrate the value of their programs
without excessive spending on
marketing and recruitment.
Additionally, institutions that work to
improve the quality of their programs
could see increased revenues from
improved retention and completion and
therefore, additional tuition revenue.
We believe the information
transparency will increase enrollment
and revenues in well-performing
programs. Improved information should
increase market demand for programs
that produce good outcomes. While the
increases or decreases in revenues for
institutions are benefits or costs from
the institutional perspective, they are
transfers from a social perspective.
However, any additional demand for
education due to overall program
quality improvement would be
considered a social benefit.
The improved information that will
be available as a result of the regulations
will also benefit institutions’ planning
and improvement efforts. Information
about student outcomes will help
institutions determine whether it would
be prudent to expand, improve quality,
reduce costs, or eliminate various
programs. Institutions may also use this
information to offer new programs in
fields where students are experiencing
positive outcomes, including higher
earnings and steady employment.
Additionally, institutions will be able to
identify and learn from programs that
produce exceptional results for
students.
Capital. Federal Reserve Bank of N.Y. Staff Report
No. 912. Gicheva, D. (2016). Student Loans or
Marriage? A Look at the Highly Educated.
Economics of Education Review, 53, 207–2016.
Gicheva, D. & Thompson, J. (2015). The Effects of
Student Loans on Long-Term Household Financial
Stability. In Hershbein, B. & Hollenbeck, K. (Ed.).
Student Loans and the Dynamics of Debt (137–174).
W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research:
Kalamazoo, MI. Hillman, NW (2014). College on
Credit: A Multilevel Analysis of Student Loan
Default. Review of Higher Education 37(2), 169–195.
Mezza, A., Ringo, D., Sherlund, S. & Sommer, K.
(2020). Student Loans and Homeownership. Journal
of Labor Economics, 38(1): 215–260.
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Benefits to State and Local Governments
State and local governments will
benefit from additional tax revenue
associated with higher student earnings
and students’ increased ability to spend
money in the economy. They are also
likely to benefit from reduced costs
because, as institutions improve the
quality of their programs, their
graduates are likely to have improved
job prospects and higher earnings,
meaning that governments are likely to
be able to spend less on unemployment
benefits and other social safety net
programs. State and local governments
will also experience improved oversight
of their investments in postsecondary
education. Additionally, State, and local
postsecondary education funding could
be allocated more efficiently to higherperforming programs. State and local
governments would also experience a
better return on investment on their
dollars spent on financial aid programs
as postsecondary program quality
improves or if students reallocate to
higher-performing programs.
Benefits to Federal Government
The Federal Government should
benefit from additional tax revenue
associated with higher student earnings
and students’ increased ability to spend
money in the economy. Another
primary benefit of the regulations will
be improved oversight and
administration of the title IV, HEA
programs, particularly the new data
reported by institutions. Additionally,
Federal taxpayer funds should be
allocated more efficiently to higherperforming programs, where students
are more likely to graduate with
manageable amounts of debt and gain
stable employment in a well-paying
field, increasing the positive benefits of
Federal investment in title IV, HEA
programs.
The taxpayers and the Government
will also benefit from improved
information about GE programs. As the
funders and stewards of the title IV,
HEA programs, these parties have an
interest in knowing whether title IV,
HEA program funds are benefiting
students. The information provided will
allow for more effective monitoring of
the Federal investment in GE programs.
Costs
Costs to Students
Students may incur some costs as a
result of the final regulations. One cost
is that all title IV, HEA students
attending eligible non-GE programs that
fail the D/E metric will be required to
acknowledge having seen information
about program outcomes before students
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
sign enrollment agreements. Students
attending GE programs with at least one
failing metric will additionally be
required to acknowledge a warning that
the program could lose title IV, HEA
eligibility. The acknowledgment is the
main student cost we quantify in our
analysis. We expect that over the longterm, all students will have increased
access to programs that lead to
successful outcomes. In the short term,
students in failing programs could incur
search and logistical costs associated
with finding and enrolling in an
alternative program, whether that be a
GE or non-GE program. Further, at least
some students may be temporarily left
without transfer options. We expect that
many of these students will re-enter
postsecondary education later, but we
understand that some students may not
continue. We do not quantify these costs
associated with searching for and
transferring to new postsecondary
programs.
Costs to Institutions
Under the regulations, institutions
will incur costs as they make changes
needed to comply, including costs
associated with the reporting,
disclosure, and acknowledgment
requirements. These costs could include
(1) Training of staff for additional
duties, (2) potential hiring of new
employees, (3) purchase of new, or
modifications to existing, software or
equipment, and (4) procurement of
external services.
As described in the Preamble, much
of the necessary information required
from GE programs would already have
been reported to the Department under
the 2014 Prior Rule, and as such we
believe the added burden of this
reporting relative to existing
requirements will be reasonable.
Furthermore, 88 percent of public and
47 percent of private nonprofit
institutions operated at least one GE
program and have experience with
similar data reporting for the subset of
their students enrolled in certificate
programs under the 2014 Prior Rule.
Moreover, many institutions report
more detailed information on the
components of cost of attendance and
other sources of financial aid in the
Federal National Postsecondary Student
Aid Survey (NPSAS) administered by
the National Center for Education
Statistics. Finally, for the first six years
after the effective date of the rule, the
Department provides flexibility for
institutions to avoid reporting data on
students who completed programs in
the past, and instead to use data on
more recent completer cohorts to
estimate median debt levels. In part, this
is intended to ease the administrative
burden of providing this data for
programs that were not covered by the
2014 Prior Rule reporting requirements,
especially for the small number of
institutions that may not previously
have had any programs subject to these
requirements.
Our initial estimate of the time cost of
these reporting requirements for
70153
institutions is 5.0 million hours initially
and then 1.4 million hours annually
after the first year. The Department
recognizes that institutions may have
different approaches and processes for
record-keeping and administering
financial aid, so the burden of the GE
and financial transparency reporting
could vary by institution. Many
institutions may have systems that can
be queried or existing reports that can
be adapted to meet these reporting
requirements. On the other hand, some
institutions may still have data entry
processes that are very manual in nature
and generating the information for their
programs could involve many more
hours and resources. Institutions may
fall in between these poles and be able
to automate the reporting of some
variables but need more effort for others.
The total reporting burden will be
distributed across institutions
depending on the setup of their systems
and processes. We believe that, while
the reporting relates to program or
student-level information, the reporting
process is likely to be handled at the
institutional level.
Table 5.2 presents the Department’s
estimates of the hours associated with
the reporting requirements. The
reporting process will involve staff
members or contractors with different
skills and levels of responsibility. We
have estimated this using Bureau of
Labor statistics median hourly wage for
Education Administrators, PostSecondary of $48.05.311
TABLE 5.2—ESTIMATED HOURS AND WAGE RATE FOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Process
Hours
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Review systems and existing reports for adaptability for this reporting .................................................................
Develop reporting query/result template:
Program-level reporting ....................................................................................................................................
Student-level reporting .....................................................................................................................................
Run test reports:
Program-level reporting ....................................................................................................................................
Student-level reporting .....................................................................................................................................
Review/validate test report results:
Program-level reporting ....................................................................................................................................
Student-level reporting .....................................................................................................................................
Run reports:
Program-level reporting ....................................................................................................................................
Student-level reporting .....................................................................................................................................
Review/validate report results:
Program-level reporting ....................................................................................................................................
Student-level reporting .....................................................................................................................................
Certify and submit reporting ....................................................................................................................................
The ability to set up reports or
processes that can be rerun in future
years, along with the fact that the first
reporting cycle includes information
from several prior years, means that the
expected burden should decrease
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
10
Per institution.
15
30
Per institution.
Per institution.
0.25
0.5
Per institution.
Per institution.
10
20
Per institution.
Per institution.
0.25
0.5
2
5
10
Per program
Per program
Per program
Per program
Per institution.
significantly after the first reporting
cycle. We estimate that the hours
associated with reviewing systems,
311 Available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oes119033.htm.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Hours basis
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70154
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
developing or updating queries, and
reviewing and validating the test queries
or reports will be reduced by 35 percent
after the first year. After initial reporting
is completed, the institution will need
to confirm there are no program changes
in CIP code, credential level,
preparation for licensure, accreditation,
or other items on an ongoing basis. We
expect that process would be less
burdensome than initially establishing
the reporting. Table 5.3 presents
estimates of reporting burden for the
initial year and subsequent years under
§ 668.408.
TABLE 5.3.1—ESTIMATED REPORTING BURDEN FOR THE INITIAL REPORTING CYCLE
Institution
count
Control and level
Program
count
Hours
Amount
Private 2-year ..............................................................................................................
Proprietary 2-year ........................................................................................................
Public 2-year ................................................................................................................
Private 4-year ..............................................................................................................
Proprietary 4-year ........................................................................................................
Public 4-year ................................................................................................................
121
1,194
1,036
1,290
177
700
700
3,490
37,612
49,000
2,970
56,088
33,286
222,516
1,265,169
1,642,518
109,018
1,805,753
1,599,380
10,691,870
60,791,370
78,922,966
5,238,303
86,766,432
Total ......................................................................................................................
4,518
149,860
5,078,259
244,010,321
TABLE 5.3.2—ESTIMATED REPORTING BURDEN FOR SUBSEQUENT REPORTING CYCLES
Institution
count
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Control and level
Program
count
Hours
Amount
Private 2-year ..............................................................................................................
Proprietary 2-year ........................................................................................................
Public 2-year ................................................................................................................
Private 4-year ..............................................................................................................
Proprietary 4-year ........................................................................................................
Public 4-year ................................................................................................................
121
1194
1036
1290
177
700
700
3490
37612
49000
2970
56088
13,411
105,852
359,869
464,890
34,700
480,882
644,399
5,086,165
17,291,705
22,337,965
1,667,311
23,106,380
Total ......................................................................................................................
4,518
149,860
1,459,603
70,133,924
These burden estimates are not
reduced for the exemption that allows
institutions to not report on programs
with less than thirty completers across
the most recent four award years. We
expect this provision would reduce the
burden on foreign institutions and
others across a variety of fields and
institutional characteristics.
As described in the section titled
‘‘Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,’’ the
final estimates of reporting costs will be
cleared at a later date through a separate
information collection. Institutions’
share of the annual costs associated
with disclosures, acknowledgment for
all programs, and warnings and
acknowledgment for GE programs are
estimated to be $12 million, $0.05
million, and $0.76 million, respectively.
Note that most of the burden associated
acknowledgments will fall on students,
not institutions. These costs are
discussed in more detail in the section
titled ‘‘Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.’’
Institutions that make efforts to
improve the outcomes of failing
programs could face additional costs.
For example, institutions that reduce
the tuition and fees of programs would
see decreased revenue. For students
who are currently enrolled in a program,
the reduced price would be a transfer to
them in the form of a lower cost of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
attendance. In turn, some of this price
reduction would be a transfer to the
government if the tuition was being paid
for with title IV, HEA funds. An
institution could also choose to spend
more on curriculum development to, for
example, link a program’s content to the
needs of in-demand and well-paying
jobs in the workforce, or allocate more
funds toward other functions. These
other functions could include hiring
better faculty; providing training to
existing faculty; offering tutoring or
other support services to assist
struggling students; providing career
counseling to help students find jobs;
acquiring more up-to-date equipment; or
investing in other areas where increased
spending could yield improved
performance. However, as mentioned in
the benefits section, institutions that
improve program quality could see
increased tuition revenue with
improved retention and completion.
The costs of program changes in
response to the regulations are difficult
to quantify generally, as they would
vary significantly by institution and
ultimately depend on institutional
behavior. For example, institutions with
all passing programs could elect to
commit only minimal resources toward
improving outcomes. On the other hand,
they could instead make substantial
investments to expand passing programs
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and meet increased demand from
prospective students, which could
result in an attendant increase in
enrollment costs. Institutions with
failing programs could decide to devote
significant resources toward improving
performance, depending on their
capacity, or could instead elect to
discontinue one or more of the
programs. However, as mentioned
previously, some of these costs might be
offset by increased revenue from
improved program quality. Given these
ambiguities, we do not quantify costs (or
benefits) associated with program
quality improvements.
Finally, some poorly performing
programs will experience a reduction in
enrollment that is not fully offset by
gains to other institutions (which will
experience increased enrollment) or the
Federal Government (which will
experience lower spending on Title IV,
HEA aid). These losses should be
considered as costs for institutions.
Costs to States and Local Governments
State and local governments may
experience increased costs as
enrollment in well-performing programs
at public institutions increases as a
result of some students transferring from
failing programs, including those
offered by for-profit institutions.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70155
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
The Department recognizes that a
shift in students to public institutions
could result in higher State and local
government costs, but the extent of this
is dependent on student transfer
patterns, State and local government
choices, and the existing capacity of
public programs. If States choose to
expand the enrollment capacity of
passing programs at public institutions,
it is not necessarily the case that they
would face marginal costs that are
similar to their average cost or that they
would only choose to expand through
traditional brick-and-mortar
institutions. The Department continues
to find that many States across the
country are experimenting with
innovative models that use different
methods of instruction and content
delivery, including online offerings, that
allow students to complete courses
faster and at lower cost. Furthermore,
enrollment shifts would likely be
towards community colleges, where
declining enrollment has created excess
capacity. An under-subscribed college
may see greater efficiency gains from
increasing enrollment and avoid other
costly situations such as unused
classroom space or unsustainably low
enrollment. Forecasting the extent to
which future growth would occur in
traditional settings versus online
education or some other model is
outside the scope of this analysis.
Nonetheless, we do include the
additional instructional cost associated
with a shift from failing to passing
programs in our analysis, some of which
will fall on State and local governments.
Costs to Federal Government
The main costs to the Federal
Government involve setting up the
infrastructure to handle and process
additional information reported by
institutions, compute rates and other
information annually, and maintain a
program information website and
acknowledgment process. Most of these
activities will be integrated into the
Department’s existing processes. We
estimate that the total implementation
cost will be $30 million.
Transfers
Enrollment shifts between programs,
and potentially to non-enrollment, will
transfer resources between students,
institutions, State and local
governments, and the Federal
Government. We model three main
transfers. First, if some students drop
out of postsecondary education or
remain in programs that lose eligibility
for title IV, HEA Federal student aid,
there would be a transfer of Federal
student aid from those students to the
Federal Government. Second, if
students change institutions based on
program performance, or title IV, HEA
eligibility, revenues and expenses
associated with students would transfer
between postsecondary institutions.
Finally, additional earnings associated
with movement from low- to high-value
programs would result in greater loan
repayment by borrowers. This is
through both lower default rates and a
lower likelihood of loan forgiveness
through existing IDR plans. This
represents a transfer from students to
the Federal Government. We do not
quantify the transfers between students
and State governments associated with
changes in State-financed student aid,
as such programs differ greatly across
States. Transfers between students and
States could be net positive for States if
fewer students apply for, or need, State
aid programs or they could be negative
if enrollment shifts to State programs
results in greater use of State aid.
6. Methodology for Budget Impact and
Estimates of Costs, Benefits, and
Transfers
In this section we describe the
methodology used to estimate the
budget impact as well as the main costs,
benefits, and transfers. Our modeling
and impact only include the Financial
Value Transparency and GE parts of the
final rule.
The main behaviors that drive the
direction and magnitudes of the budget
impacts of the rule and the quantified
costs, benefits, and transfers are the
performance of programs and the
enrollment and borrowing decisions of
students. The Department developed a
model based on assumptions regarding
enrollment, program performance,
student response to program
performance, and average amount of
title IV, HEA funds per student to
estimate the budget impact of these
regulations. Additional assumptions
about the earnings outcomes and
instructional spending associated with
program enrollment and tax revenue
from additional earnings were used to
quantify costs, benefits, and transfers.
The model (1) takes into account a
program’s past results under the D/E
and EP rates measure to predict future
results, and (2) tracks a GE program’s
cumulative results across multiple
cycles of results to determine title IV,
HEA eligibility.
Assumptions
We made assumptions in four areas in
order to estimate the budget impact of
the rule: (1) Program performance under
the rule; (2) Student behavior in
response to program performance; (3)
Borrowing of students under the rule;
and (4) Enrollment growth of students
in GE and non-GE programs. Table 6.1
below provides an overview of the main
categories of assumptions and the
sources. Assumptions that are included
in our sensitivity analysis are also
highlighted. Wherever possible, our
assumptions are based on past
performance and student enrollment
patterns in data maintained by the
Department or documented by scholars
in prior research. Additional
assumptions needed to quantify costs,
benefits, and transfers are described
later when we describe the methodology
for those calculations.
TABLE 6.1—MAIN ASSUMPTIONS AND SOURCES
Category
Detail
Source
Included in
sensitivity?
Assumptions for Budget Impact and Calculation of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Program Performance at Baseline ..
Enrollment Growth ...........................
Share in each performance category at baseline (GE and non-GE programs).
Annual enrollment growth rate by sector/level and year .........................
Program transition between performance categories.
AY2025–26, AY2026–27 onward, separately by loan risk group and for
GE and non-GE programs.
Student response .............................
Share of students who remain in programs, transfer to passing programs, or withdraw or decline to enroll by program performance category and transfer group; separately for GE and non-GE programs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
ED data ...........................................
No.
Sector-level projections based on
Department data.
Based on Department data .............
+ program improvement assumptions.
Assumptions from 2014 RIA and
prior work.
No.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Yes.
Yes.
70156
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 6.1—MAIN ASSUMPTIONS AND SOURCES—Continued
Included in
sensitivity?
Category
Detail
Source
Student borrowing ............................
Debt changes if students transfer to passing program by program performance, risk group, and cohort; separately for GE and non-GE programs.
Based on Department data .............
No.
Additional Assumptions for Calculation of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers
Earnings gain ...................................
Tax rates ..........................................
Instructional cost ..............................
Average program earnings by risk group and program performance,
separately for GE and non-GE programs.
Federal and State average marginal tax and transfer rates ....................
Average institution-level instructional expenditure by risk group and
program performance; separately for GE and non-GE programs.
Enrollment Growth Assumptions
For AYs 2023 to 2034, the budget
model assumes a constant yearly rate of
growth or decline in enrollment of
students receiving title IV, HEA program
funds in GE and non-GE programs in
absence of the rule.312 We compute the
average annual rate of change in title IV,
HEA enrollment from AY 2016 to AY
2022, separately by the combination of
control and credential level. We assume
Based on Department data .............
Yes.
Hendren and Sprung-Keyser 2020
estimates based on CBO.
IPEDS .............................................
No.
No.
this rate of growth for each type of
program for AYs 2023 to 2034 when
constructing our baseline enrollment
projections.313 Table 6.2 below reports
the assumed average annual percent
change in title IV, HEA enrollment.
TABLE 6.2—ANNUAL ENROLLMENT GROWTH RATE (PERCENT) ASSUMPTIONS
Public
¥2.6
¥3.7
¥0.5
4.2
3.0
4.9
0.9
1.2
UG Certificates ............................................................................................................................
Associate .....................................................................................................................................
Bachelor’s ....................................................................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ..............................................................................................................................
Master’s .......................................................................................................................................
Doctoral ........................................................................................................................................
Professional .................................................................................................................................
Grad Certs ...................................................................................................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Program Performance Transition
Assumptions
The methodology, described in more
detail below, models title IV, HEA
enrollment over time not for specific
programs, but rather by groupings of
programs by broad credential level and
control, the number of alternative
programs available, whether the
program is GE or non-GE, and whether
the program passes or fails the D/E and
EP metrics. The model estimates the
flow of students between these groups
due to changes in program performance
over time and reflects assumptions for
the share of enrollment that would
transition between the following four
performance categories in each year:
• Passing (includes with and without
data)
• Failing D/E rate only
• Failing EP rate only
• Failing both D/E and EP rates
A GE program becomes ineligible if it
fails either the D/E or EP rate measures
in two out of three consecutive years.
312 AYs 2023 to 2034 are transformed to FYs 2023
to 2033 later in the estimation process.
313 The number of programs in proprietary postBA certificates and proprietary professional degrees
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Private,
nonprofit
¥6.9
¥3.9
¥0.8
¥2.3
0.5
3.1
¥0.1
2.0
Proprietary
4.1
¥3.7
¥2.7
¥0.4
¥1.1
¥1.7
¥0.4
¥0.8
We assume that ineligible programs
remain that way for all future years and,
therefore, do not model performance
transitions after ineligibility is reached.
The model applies different
assumptions for the first year of
transition (from year 2025 to 2026) and
subsequent years (after 2026). It assumes
that the rates of program transition
reach a steady state in 2027. We assume
modest improvement in performance,
indicated by a reduction in the rate of
failing and an increase in the rate of
passing, among programs that fail one of
the metrics, and an increase in the rate
of passing again, among GE programs
that pass the metrics. All transition
probabilities are estimated separately for
GE and non-GE programs and for four
aggregate groups: proprietary 2-year or
less; public or nonprofit 2-year or less;
4-year programs; graduate programs.314
The assumptions for the 2025 to 2026
transition are taken directly from an
observed comparison of actual rates
results for two consecutive cohorts of
students. The initial assignment of
performance categories in 2025 is based
on the 2022 PPD for students who
completed programs in award years
2015 and 2016, whose earnings are
measured in calendar years 2018 and
2019. The program transition
assumptions for 2025 to 2026 are based
on the outcomes for this cohort of
students along with the earnings
outcomes of students who completed
programs in award years 2016 and 2017
(earnings measured in calendar years
2019 and 2020) and debt of students
who completed programs in award years
2017 and 2018. A new set of D/E and
EP metrics was computed for each
program using this additional two-year
cohort. Programs with fewer than 30
completers or with fewer than 30
completers with earnings records are
determined to be passing, though can
transition out of this category between
years. The share of enrollment that
transitions from each performance
was too low to reliably compute a growth rate.
Therefore, we assumed a rate equal to the overall
proprietary rate of ¥0.4 percent.
314 The budget simulations separate lower and
upper division enrollment in 4-year programs. We
assume the same program transition rates for both.
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70157
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
category to another is computed
separately for each group.315
The left panels of Tables 6.3 and 6.4
report the program transition
assumptions from 2025 to 2026 for nonGE and GE programs, respectively.
Program performance for non-GE is
quite stable, with 95.8 percent of
passing enrollment in two-year or less
public and nonprofit expected to remain
in passing programs. Persistence rates
are even higher among 4-year and
graduate programs. Among programs
that fail the EP threshold, a relatively
high share—more than one-third among
2-year and less programs—would be at
passing programs in a subsequent year.
The performance of GE programs is only
slightly less persistent than that of nonGE programs. Note that GE programs
would become ineligible for title IV,
HEA funds the following year if they fail
the same metric two years in a row.
Among enrollment in less than two-year
proprietary programs that fail the EP
metric in 2025, 21.7 percent would pass
in 2026 due to a combination of passing
with data and no data.
The observed results also serve as the
baseline for each subsequent transition
of results (2026 to 2027, 2027 to 2028,
etc.). The model applies additional
assumptions from this baseline for each
transition beginning with 2026 to 2027.
Because the baseline assumptions are
the actual observed results of programs
based on a cohort of students that
completed programs prior to the
Department’s GE rulemaking efforts,
these transition assumptions do not
account for changes that institutions
have made to their programs in response
to the Department’s regulatory actions
or would make after the final
regulations are published.
As done with analysis of the 2014
rule, the Department assumes that
institutions at risk of warning or
sanction would take at least some steps
to improve program performance by
improving program quality, job
placement, and lowering prices (leading
to lower levels of debt), beginning with
the 2026 to 2027 transition. There is
evidence that institutions have
responded to past GE measures by
aiming to improve outcomes or
redirecting enrollment from lowperforming programs. Institutions
subject to GE regulations have
experienced slower enrollment and
those that pass GE thresholds tend to
have a lower likelihood of program or
institution closure.316 Some leaders of
institutions subject to GE regulation in
2014 did make improvements, such as
lowering costs, increasing job placement
and academic support staff, and other
changes.317 We account for this by
increasing the baseline observed
probability of having a passing result by
five percentage points for programs with
at least one failing metric in 2026.
Additionally, we improve the baseline
observed probability of passing GE
programs having a sequential passing
result by two and a half percentage
points to capture the incentive that
currently passing programs have to
remain that way. These new rates are
shown in the right panels of Tables 6.3
and 6.4.
We assume the same rates of
transition between performance
categories for subsequent years as we do
for the 2026 to 2027 transitions.
Since the budget impact and net costs,
benefits, and transfers depend on
assumptions about institutional
performance after the rule is enacted,
we incorporate alternative assumptions
about these transitions in our sensitivity
analysis.
TABLE 6.3—PROGRAM TRANSITION ASSUMPTIONS NON-GE PROGRAMS
Percent in year t+1 status
(2026)
I
Pass
I
Fail
D/E only
I
Fail
EP only
Percent in year t+1 status
(2027–2033)
I
Fail
Both
II
Pass
I
Fail
D/E only
I
Fail
EP only
I
Fail
Both
Public and Nonprofit 2-year or less
Year t Status:
Pass ..........................................................................
Fail D/E only ..............................................................
Fail EP only ...............................................................
Fail Both ....................................................................
I
95.8
10.1
37.7
22.2
I
0.0
84.3
0.1
6.5
4.1
1.6
62.1
8.6
0.1
4.1
0.1
62.7
0.4
0.7
48.1
5.4
0.2
6.9
5.3
59.0
I
95.8
15.1
42.7
27.2
I
0.0
79.3
0.1
6.5
I
4.1
1.6
57.1
8.6
I
0.1
4.1
0.1
57.7
4-year
Year t Status:
Pass ..........................................................................
Fail D/E only ..............................................................
Fail EP only ...............................................................
Fail Both ....................................................................
I
99.1
28.8
45.5
24.3
I
0.3
63.6
1.1
11.3
I
I
I
99.1
33.8
50.5
29.3
I
0.3
58.6
1.1
11.3
I
0.4
0.7
43.1
5.4
I
0.2
6.9
5.3
54.0
Graduate
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Year t Status:
Pass ..........................................................................
Fail D/E only ..............................................................
Fail EP only ...............................................................
Fail Both ....................................................................
315 In order to produce transition rates that are
stable over time and that do not include secular
trends in passing or failing rates (which are already
reflected in our program growth assumptions), we
compute transition rates from Year 1 to Year 2 and
from Year 2 to Year 1 and average them to generate
a stable rate shown in the tables.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
I
98.3
29.2
72.4
20.2
I
1.6
69.3
0.0
44.3
0.0
0.0
17.9
2.7
0.0
1.5
9.7
32.7
316 Fountain, J. (2019). The Effect of the Gainful
Employment Regulatory Uncertainty on Student
Enrollment at For-Profit Institutions of Higher
Education. Research in Higher Education, Springer;
Association for Institutional Research, vol. 60(8),
1065–1089. Kelchen, R. & Liu, Z. (2022). Did
Gainful Employment Regulations Result in College
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
I
98.3
34.2
77.4
25.2
I
1.6
64.3
0.0
44.3
I
0.0
0.0
12.9
2.7
I
0.0
1.5
9.7
27.7
and Program Closures? Education Finance and
Policy; 17 (3): 454–478.
317 Hentschke, G.C. & Parry, S.C. (2015).
Innovation in Times of Regulatory Uncertainty:
Responses to the Threat of ‘‘Gainful Employment.’’
Innov High Educ 40, 97–109 (doi.org/10.1007/
s10755-014-9298-z).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70158
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 6.4—PROGRAM TRANSITION ASSUMPTIONS GE PROGRAMS
Share in year t+1 status
(2026)
I
I
Pass
Fail
D/E only
I
Fail
EP only
Share in year t+1 status
(2027–2033)
I
Fail
Both
II
Pass
I
Fail
D/E only
I
Fail
EP only
I
Fail
Both
Proprietary 2-year or less
Year t Status:
Pass ..........................................................................
Fail D/E only ..............................................................
Fail EP only ...............................................................
Fail Both ....................................................................
I
91.1
18.8
10.7
3.4
I
2.3
66.7
0.0
7.2
I
5.8
0.2
82.1
15.8
I
0.9
14.4
7.2
73.6
I
93.6
23.8
15.7
8.4
I
1.7
61.7
0.0
7.2
I
4.2
0.2
77.1
15.8
I
0.6
14.4
7.2
68.6
Public and Nonprofit 2-year or less
Year t Status:
Pass ..........................................................................
Fail D/E only ..............................................................
Fail EP only ...............................................................
Fail Both ....................................................................
I
95.8
60.5
47.3
29.1
I
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.2
4.1
0.0
51.8
8.9
0.1
39.5
0.8
32.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.4
8.3
92.7
60.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
2.4
0.0
53.9
I
98.3
65.5
52.3
34.1
I
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.2
I
1.7
0.0
46.8
8.9
I
0.1
34.5
0.8
27.7
4-year
Year t Status:
Pass ..........................................................................
Fail D/E only ..............................................................
Fail EP only ...............................................................
Fail Both ....................................................................
I
94.1
21.4
2.4
5.4
I
5.4
70.3
4.9
32.2
I
96.6
26.4
7.4
10.4
I
3.1
65.3
4.9
32.2
I
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
I
0.2
8.3
87.7
55.9
Graduate
Year t Status:
Pass ..........................................................................
Fail D/E only ..............................................................
Fail EP only ...............................................................
Fail Both ....................................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Student Response Assumptions
The Department’s model applies
assumptions for the probability that a
current or potential student would
transfer or choose a different program,
remain in or choose the same program,
or withdraw from or not enroll in any
postsecondary program in reaction to a
program’s performance. The model
assumes that student response would be
greater when a program becomes
ineligible for title IV, HEA aid than
when a program has a single year of
inadequate performance, which initiates
warnings and the acknowledgment
requirement for GE programs, an
acknowledgment requirement non-GE
programs that fail D/E, and publicly
reported performance information in the
ED portal for both GE and non-GE
programs. We also let the rates of
transfer and withdrawal or nonenrollment differ with the number of
alternative transfer options available to
students enrolled (or planning to enroll)
in a failing program. Specifically,
building on the analysis presented in
‘‘Measuring Students’ Alternative
Options’’ above, we categorize
individual programs into one of four
categories:
• High transfer options: Have at least
one passing program in the same
credential level at the same institution
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
I
97.0
19.9
100.0
8.7
I
2.9
77.7
0.0
37.4
I
I
and in a related field (as indicated by
being in the same 2-digit CIP code).
• Medium transfer options: Have a
passing transfer option within the same
ZIP3, credential level, and narrow field
(4-digit CIP code).
• Low transfer options: Have a
passing transfer option within the same
ZIP3, credential level, and broad (2digit) CIP code.
• Few transfer options: Do not have a
passing transfer option within the same
ZIP3, credential level, and broad (2digit) CIP code. Students in these
programs would be required to enroll in
either a distance education program or
enroll outside their ZIP3. As shown in
‘‘Measuring Students’ Alternative
Options,’’ all failing programs have at
least one non-failing program in the
same credential level and 2-digit CIP
code in the same State.
For each of the four categories above,
we make assumptions for each type of
student transition. Programs with
passing metrics are assumed to retain all
of their students.
Students that transfer are assumed to
transfer to passing programs, and for the
purposes of the budget simulation this
includes programs with an insufficient
n-size. We assume that rates of
withdrawal (or non-enrollment) and
transfer are higher for ineligible
programs than those where only the
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
I
99.5
24.9
100.0
13.7
I
0.5
72.7
0.0
37.4
I
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
I
0.0
2.4
0.0
48.9
warning/acknowledgment is required
(GE programs with one year of a failing
metric and non-GE programs with a
failing D/E metric). We also assume that
rates of transfer are weakly decreasing
(and rates of dropout and remaining in
program are both weakly increasing) as
programs have fewer transfer options.
These assumptions regarding student
responses to program results are
provided in Tables 6.5 and 6.6. Coupled
with the scenarios presented in the
‘‘Sensitivity Analysis,’’ these
assumptions are intended to provide a
reasonable estimation of the range of
impact that the regulations could have
on the budget and overall social costs,
benefits, and transfers.
The assumptions above are based on
our best judgment and from extant
research that we view as reasonable
guides to the share of students likely to
transfer to or choose another program
when their program loses title IV, HEA
eligibility. For instance, a 2021 GAO
report found that about half of noncompleting students who were at closed
institutions transferred.318 This
magnitude is similar to recent analysis
that found that 47 percent of students
318 Government Accountability Office (2022).
College Closures: Education Should Improve
Outreach to Borrowers about Loan Discharges
(GAO–22–104403) (https://www.gao.gov/products/
gao-22-104403).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70159
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
reenrolled after an institutional
closure.319 The authors of this report
find very little movement from public or
nonprofit institutions into for-profit
institutions, but considerable movement
in the other direction. For example,
about half of re-enrollees at closed forprofit 2-year institutions moved to
public 2-year institutions, whereas less
than 3 percent of re-enrollees at closed
public and private nonprofit 4-year
institutions moved to for-profit
institutions. Other evidence from
historical cohort default rate sanctions
indicates a transfer rate of about half of
students at for-profit colleges that were
subject to loss of Federal financial aid
disbursement eligibility, with much of
that shift to public two-year
institutions.320 The Department also
conducted its own internal analysis of
ITT Technical Institute closures. About
half of students subject to the closure reenrolled elsewhere (relative to preclosure patterns). The majority of
students that re-enrolled did so in the
same two-digit CIP code. Of associate
degree students that re-enrolled, 45
percent transferred to a public
institution, 41 percent transferred to a
different for-profit institution, and 13
percent transferred to a private
nonprofit institution. Most remained in
associate or certificate programs. Of
bachelor’s degree students that reenrolled, 54 percent transferred to a
different for-profit institution, 25
percent shifted to a public institution,
and 21 percent transferred to a private
nonprofit institution.
Data from the Beginning
Postsecondary Students Longitudinal
2012/2017 study provides further
information on students’ general
patterns through and across
postsecondary institutions (not specific
to responses to sanctions or closures).
Of students that started at a public or
private nonprofit 4-year institution,
about 3 percent shifted to a for-profit
institution within 5 years. Of those that
began at a public or private nonprofit 2year institution, about 8 percent shifted
to a for-profit institution within 5 years.
The attestations for non-GE programs
are scheduled to begin the year
following the attestations for GE
programs. Therefore, we delay applying
transfer rates to non-GE programs in the
first year of our budget analysis.
Additionally, since undergraduate
associate and bachelor’s degree
programs will not have an attestation
requirement, we decrease the rate of
transfer out by one quarter for these
programs.
TABLE 6.5—STUDENT RESPONSE ASSUMPTIONS, BY PROGRAM RESULT AND NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM
OPTIONS AVAILABLE
Program result →
Pass
Student Response →
Remain
Transfer
Fail once
Withdrawal/
non-enrollment
Remain
Ineligible
Withdrawal/
non-enrollment
Transfer
Remain
Withdrawal/
non-enrollment
Transfer
GE:
High Alternatives ................................
Medium Alternatives ...........................
Low Alternatives .................................
Few Alternatives .................................
Non-GE, Attestation:
High Alternatives ................................
Medium Alternatives ...........................
Low Alternatives .................................
Few Alternatives .................................
Non-GE, No Attestation:
High Alternatives ................................
Medium Alternatives ...........................
Low Alternatives .................................
Few Alternatives .................................
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.45
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.15
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.25
0.60
0.55
0.45
0.35
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.40
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.85
0.8875
0.925
0.9625
0.15
0.1125
0.075
0.0375
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
In Table 6.6, we provide detail of the
assumptions of the destinations among
students who transfer, separately for the
following groups:321
•
•
•
•
• Risk 5 (Graduate)
Risk 1 (Proprietary <=2 year)
Risk 2 (Public, Nonprofit <=2 year)
Risk 3 (Lower division 4 year)
Risk 4 (Upper division 4 year)
TABLE 6.6—STUDENT RESPONSE ASSUMPTIONS, AMONG TRANSFERRING STUDENTS, SHARE SHIFTING SECTORS
Shift to GE programs
Shift from . . .
Risk 1
Risk 2
Risk 3
Shift to non-GE programs
Risk 4
Risk 5
Risk 2
Risk 3
Risk 4
Risk 5
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
GE:
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Non-GE:
Risk
Risk
Risk
1
2
3
4
5
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
0.50
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.10
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
2 ....................................................................
3 ....................................................................
4 ....................................................................
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.70
0.05
0.00
0.20
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
319 State Higher Ed. Executive Officers Ass’n
(2022). More than 100,000 Students Experienced an
Abrupt Campus Closure Between July 2004 and
June 2020 (sheeo.org/more-than-100000-studentsexperienced-an-abrupt-campus-closure-betweenjuly-2004-and-june-2020/).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
320 Cellini, S.R., Darolia, R. & Turner, L.J. (2020).
Where Do Students Go When For-Profit Colleges
Lose Federal Aid? American Economic Journal:
Economic Policy, 12(2), 46–83.
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
321 Lower division includes students in their first
two years of undergraduate education. Upper
division includes students in their third year or
higher.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70160
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 6.6—STUDENT RESPONSE ASSUMPTIONS, AMONG TRANSFERRING STUDENTS, SHARE SHIFTING SECTORS—
Continued
Shift to GE programs
Shift from . . .
Risk 1
Risk 5 ....................................................................
As we describe below, the
assumptions for student responses are
applied to the estimated enrollment in
each aggregate group after factoring in
enrollment growth.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Student Borrowing Assumptions
Analyses in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis of the 2014 Prior Rule assumed
that student debt was unchanged if
students transferred from failing to
passing programs, but we believe this
assumption to be too conservative given
that one goal of the GE rule is to reduce
the debt burden of students. Recall that
Tables 4.29 and 4.30 above reported the
percent difference in mean debt
between failing GE and non-GE
programs and their transfer options, by
credential level and 2-digit CIP code.
Across all subjects and credential levels,
debt is 22 percent lower at alternative
programs than at failing GE programs.
At non-GE programs, there is no
aggregate debt difference between
failing programs and their alternatives,
though this masks heterogeneity across
credential levels. For graduate degree
programs, movement to alternative
programs from failing programs is
associated with lower debt levels while
movement from failing to passing
Associate programs is associated with
an increase in debt. Students that drop
out of (or decline to enroll in) failing
programs are assumed to acquire no
educational debt.
To incorporate changes in average
loan volume associated with student
transitions, we compute average
subsidized and unsubsidized direct
loan, Grad PLUS, and Parent PLUS per
enrollment separately for GE and nonGE programs by risk group and program
performance group. These averages are
then applied to shifts in enrollment to
generate changes in the amount of aid.
Methodology for Net Budget Impact
The budget model estimates a yearly
enrollment for AYs 2023 to 2034 and
the distribution of those enrollments in
programs characterized by D/E and EP
performance, risk group, transfer
category, and whether it is a GE
program. This enrollment is projected
for a baseline (in absence of the rule)
and under the final rule. The net budget
impact for each year is calculated by
applying assumptions regarding the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Risk 2
0.00
0.00
Risk 3
0.00
Shift to non-GE programs
Risk 4
Risk 5
0.00
average amount of title IV, HEA program
funds received by this distribution of
enrollments across groups of programs.
The difference in these two scenarios
provides the Department’s estimate of
the impact of the final rule. We do not
simulate the impact on the rule at the
individual program level because doing
so would necessitate very specific
assumptions about which programs’
students transfer to in response to the
regulations. While we made such
assumptions in the ‘‘Measuring
Students’ Alternatives’’ section above,
we do not think it is analytically
tractable to do for all years. Therefore,
for the purposes of budget modeling, we
perform analysis with aggregations of
programs into groups defined by the
following: 322
• Five student loan model risk
groups: (1) 2-year (and below) for-profit;
(2) 2-year (and below) public or
nonprofit; (3) 4-year (any control) lower
division, which is students in their first
two years of a bachelor’s program; (4) 4year (any control) upper division, which
is students beyond their first two years
of a bachelor’s program; (5) Graduate
student (any control).
• Four transfer categories (high,
medium, low, few alternatives) by
which the student transfer rates are
assumed to differ. This is a programlevel characteristic that is assumed not
to change.
• Two GE program categories (GE and
eligible non-GE) by which the program
transitions are assumed to differ.
• Six performance categories: Pass,
Fail D/E, Fail EP, Fail Both, Preineligible (a program’s current
enrollment is Title IV, HEA eligible, but
next year’s enrollment would not be),
Ineligible (current enrollment is not
Title IV, HEA eligible).
We refer to groups defined by these
characteristics as ‘‘program aggregate’’
groups.
We first generate a projected baseline
(in absence of the final rule) enrollment,
Pell grant volume, and loan volume for
each of the program aggregate groups
from AYs 2023 to 2034. This baseline
322 Note that non-GE programs do not include risk
group 1 (2-year and below for-profit institutions) or
the pre-ineligible or ineligible performance
categories. Some groups also do not have all four
transfer group categories. There are 184 total groups
used in the analysis.
PO 00000
Frm 00158
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
0.05
Risk 2
0.00
Risk 3
0.00
Risk 4
0.00
Risk 5
0.95
projection includes several steps. First,
we compute average annual growth rate
for each control by credential level from
2016 to 2022. These growth rates are
presented in Table 6.2. We then apply
these annual growth rates to the actual
enrollment by program in 2022 to
forecast enrollment in each program in
2023. This step is repeated for each year
to get projected enrollment by program
through 2034. We then compute average
Pell, subsidized and unsubsidized direct
loan, Grad PLUS, and Parent PLUS per
enrollment by risk group, program
performance group, and GE vs. non-GE
for 2022. These averages are then
adjusted according to the PB2024 loan
volume and Pell grant baseline
assumptions for the change in average
loan by loan type and the change in
average Pell grant. We then multiply the
projected enrollment for each program
by these average aid amounts to get
projected total aid volume by program
through 2034. Finally, we sum the
enrollment and aid amounts across
programs for each year to get enrollment
and aid volume by program aggregate
group, AYs 2023 to 2034, and shift the
baseline Pell and loan volume from AYs
2023 to 2034 to FYs 2023 to 2033 for
calculating budget cost estimates.
The most significant task is to
generate projected enrollment, Pell
volume, and loan volume for each of the
program aggregate groups from 2023 to
2033 with the rule in place. We assume
the first set of rates would be released
in 2025 award year, so this is starting
year for our projections. Projecting
counterfactual enrollment and aid
volumes involves several steps:
Step 1: Start with the enrollment by
program aggregate group in 2025. In this
first year there are no programs that are
ineligible for Title IV, HEA funding.
Step 2: Apply the student transition
assumptions to the enrollment by
program aggregate group. This generates
estimates of the enrollment that is
expected to remain enrolled in the
program aggregate group, the enrollment
that is expected to drop out of
postsecondary enrollment, and the
enrollment that is expected to transfer to
a different program aggregate group.
Step 3: Compute new estimated
enrollment for the start of 2026 (before
the second program performance is
revealed) for each cell by adding the
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
remaining enrollment to the enrollment
that is expected to transfer into that
group. We assume that (1) students
transfer from failing or ineligible
programs to passing programs in the
same transfer group and GE program
group; (2) Students in risk groups 3
(lower division 4-year), 4 (upper
division 4-year college) or 5 (graduate)
stay in those risk groups; (3) Students in
risk group 1 can shift to risk groups 2
or 3; (4) Students in risk group 2 can
shift to risk groups 1 or 3. Therefore, we
permit enrollment to shift between
proprietary and public or nonprofit
certificate programs and from certificate
and associate programs to lower—
division bachelor’s programs. We also
allow enrollment to shift between GE
and non-GE program, based on the
assumptions listed in Table 6.6.
Step 4: Determine the change in
aggregate baseline enrollment between
2025 and 2026 for each risk group and
allocate these additional enrollments to
each program aggregate group in
proportion to the group enrollment
computed in Step 3.
Step 5: Apply the program transition
assumptions to the aggregate group
enrollment from Step 4. This results in
estimates of the enrollment that would
stay within or shift from each
performance category to another
performance category in the next year.
This mapping would differ for GE and
non-GE programs and by risk group, as
reported in Tables 6.3 and 6.4 above.
For non-GE programs, every
performance category can shift
enrollment to every performance
category. For GE programs, however,
enrollment in each failure category
would not remain in the same category
because if a metric is failed twice, this
enrollment would move to preineligibility. The possible program
transitions for GE programs are:
• Pass → Pass, Fail D/E, Fail EP, Fail
Both
• Fail D/E → Pass, Fail EP, PreIneligible
• Fail EP → Pass, Fail D/E, PreIneligible
• Fail Both → Pass, Pre-Ineligible
Step 6: Compute new estimated
enrollment at end of 2026 (after program
performance is revealed) for each
program aggregate group by adding the
number that stay in the same
performance category plus the number
that shift from other performance
categories.
Step 7: Repeat steps 1 to 6 above
using the end of 2026 enrollment by
group as the starting point for 2027 and
repeat through 2034. The only addition
is that in Step 5, two more program
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
transitions are possible for GE programs:
Pre-Ineligible moves to Ineligible and
Ineligible remains Ineligible.
Step 8: Generate projected Pell grant
and loan volume by program aggregate
group from AYs 2023 to 2034 under the
rule. We multiply the projected
enrollment by group by average aid
amounts (Pell and loan volume) to get
projected total aid amounts by group
through 2034. Any enrollment that has
dropped out (not enrolled in
postsecondary) or in the ineligible
category get zero Pell and loan amounts.
Note that the average aid amounts by
cell come from the PB projections, so
are allowed to vary over time.
Step 9: Shift Pell grant and loan
volume under the rule from AYs 2025
to 2034 to FYs 2025 to 2033 for
calculating budget cost estimates.
A net savings for the title IV, HEA
programs comes through four
mechanisms. The primary source is
from students who drop out of
postsecondary education in the year
after their program receives a failing D/
E or EP rate or becomes ineligible. The
second is for the smaller number of
students who remain enrolled at a
program that becomes ineligible for title
IV, HEA program funds. Third, we
assume a budget impact on the title IV,
HEA programs from students who
transfer from programs that are failing to
better-performing programs because the
typical aid levels differ between
programs according to risk group and
program performance. For instance,
subsidized Direct Loan borrowing is 24
percent less ($2044 vs. $1547) for
students at GE programs failing the D/
E metric in risk group 1 than in passing
programs in the same risk group in
2026.
Finally, consistent with the
requirements of the Credit Reform Act
of 1990, budget cost estimates for the
title IV, HEA programs also reflect the
estimated net present value of all future
non-administrative Federal costs
associated with a cohort of loans. To
determine the estimated budget impact
from reduced loan volume, the
difference in yearly loan volumes
between the baseline and policy
scenarios were calculated as a percent of
baseline scenario volumes. This
generated an adjustment factor that was
applied to loan volumes in the Student
Loan Model (SLM) for each cohort, loan
type, and risk group combination in the
President’s Budget for FY2024 (PB2024).
The reduced loan volumes are also
expected to result in some decrease in
future consolidations which is also
captured in the model run. Since the
implied subsidy rate for each loan type
differs by risk group, enrollment shifts
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70161
to risk groups with greater expected
repayment would generate a net budget
savings. Since our analysis does not
incorporate differences in subsidy rates
between programs in the same risk
group, such as between programs
passing and failing the D/E or EP
metrics, these estimates potentially
understate the increase in expected
repayment resulting from the
regulations.
Methodology for Costs, Benefits, and
Transfers
The estimated enrollment in each
aggregate program group is used to
quantify the costs, benefits, and
transfers resulting from the regulations
for each year from 2023 to 2033. As
described in the Discussion of Costs,
Benefits, and Transfers, we quantify an
earnings gain for students from
attending higher financial value
programs and the additional tax revenue
that comes from that additional
earnings. We quantify the cost
associated with additional instructional
expenses to educate students who shift
to different types of programs and the
transfer of instructional expenses as
students shift programs. We also
estimate the transfer of title IV, HEA
program funds from programs that lose
students to programs that gain students.
Earnings Gain Benefit
A major goal of greater transparency
and accountability is to shift students
towards higher financial value
programs—those with greater earnings
potential, lower debt, or both. To
quantify the earnings gain associated
with the final rule, we estimate the
aggregate annual earnings of would-be
program graduates under the baseline
and policy scenarios and take the
difference. For each risk group and
program performance group, we
compute the enrollment-weighted
average of median program earnings.
Average earnings for programs that have
become ineligible is assumed to be the
average of median earnings for programs
in the three failing categories, weighted
by the enrollment share in these
categories. This captures, for instance,
that the earnings of 2-year programs that
become ineligible are quite lower than
those that enroll graduate students.
Since we have simulated enrollment,
but not completion, annual program
enrollment is converted into annual
program completions by applying a ratio
that differs for 2-year programs or less,
bachelor’s degree programs, or graduate
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70162
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
programs.323 Earnings for students that
do not complete are not available and
not included in our calculations.
Students that drop out of failing
programs (or decline to enroll
altogether) are assumed to receive
earnings equal to the median earnings of
high school graduates in the State (the
same measure used for the Earnings
Threshold). Therefore, earnings could
increase for this group if students
reduce enrollment in programs leading
to earnings less than a high school
graduate. We estimate aggregate
earnings by program group by
multiplying enrollment by average
earnings, reported in Table 6.7, and the
completion ratio.
TABLE 6.7—AVERAGE PROGRAM EARNINGS BY GROUP
[$2019]
Pass
Fall D/E
Fail EP only
Fail both
Ineligible
GE Programs
Proprietary 2yr or less .............................................................................
Public/Nonprofit (NP) 2yr or less .............................................................
Bachelor Lower ........................................................................................
Bachelor Upper ........................................................................................
Graduate ..................................................................................................
39,233
37,274
51,663
51,663
67,615
28,672
30,234
31,102
31,102
46,433
20,414
20,188
24,048
24,048
15,891
18,531
20,630
23,227
23,227
19,972
21,308
20,254
30,513
30,513
44,890
29,522
29,158
29,158
58,444
23,642
21,508
21,508
19,765
19,388
21,925
21,925
22,747
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Non-GE Programs
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Public/NP 2yr or less ...............................................................................
Bachelor Lower ........................................................................................
Bachelor Upper ........................................................................................
Graduate ..................................................................................................
36,492
47,839
47,839
76,619
Students experience earnings gain
each year they work following program
completion. We compute the earnings
benefit over the analysis window by
giving 2026 completers 7 years of
earnings gains, 2027 completers 6 years
of earnings gains, and so on. The
earnings gain of students that graduate
during 2033 are only measured for one
year. In reality program graduates would
experience an earnings gain annually
over their entire working career; our
estimates likely understate the total
likely earnings benefit of the policy.
However, our approach can overstate
the earnings gain of students that shift
programs if students experience a
smaller earnings gain than the average
difference between passing and failing
programs within each GE-by-risk group
in Table 6.7. To account for this, we
apply an additional adjustment factor to
the aggregate earnings difference to
quantify how much of the earnings
difference is accounted for by programs.
There is no consensus in the research
literature on the magnitude of this
parameter, with some studies finding
very large impacts of specific programs
or institutions on earnings 324 and others
finding smaller impacts.325
Unfortunately, many of these studies are
set in specific contexts (e.g. only public
four-year universities in one State) and
most look at institutions overall rather
than programs, which may not
extrapolate to our setting given the large
outcome variation across programs in
the same institution.
To select the value used for this
adjustment factor, we compared the
average earnings difference between
passing and failing programs
(conditional on credential level) before
versus after controlling for the rich
demographic characteristics described
in ‘‘Student Demographic Analysis’’
(specifically, the share of students in
each race/ethnic category, the share of
students that are male, independent,
first-generation, and a Pell grant
recipient, and the average family
income of students).326 Based on this
analysis, our primary estimates adjust
the raw earnings difference in Table 6.7
down using an adjustment factor of 75
percent. Given the uncertainty around
the proper adjustment factor to use, we
include a range of values in the
sensitivity analysis.
In the analysis of alternative options
above, we showed the expected change
in earnings for students that transfer
from failing programs for each
credential-level by 2-digit CIP code.
Across all credential levels, students
that shift from failing GE programs were
expected to increase annual earnings by
about 43 percent and those transferring
from failing non-GE programs were
expected to increase annual earnings by
about 21 percent. These estimates are in
line with those from Table 6.7 and used
in the benefit impact.
323 The ratios used are 11.5% for programs of 2year or less, 16.5% for bachelor’s programs, and
27.3% for graduate programs. These are the ratio
between number of title IV, HEA completers in the
two-year earnings cohort and the average title IV,
HEA enrollment in the 2016 and 2017 Award Years.
324 Hoekstra, Mark (2009). The Effect of Attending
the Flagship State University on Earnings: A
Discontinuity-Based Approach. Review of
Economics and Statistics, 91 (4): 717–724. Hoxby,
C.M. (2019). The Productivity of US Postsecondary
Institutions. In Productivity in Higher Education,
Hoxby, C.M. & K.M. Stange, K.M. (eds.). University
of Chicago Press: Chicago. Andrews, R.J. & Stange,
K.M. (2019). Price Regulation, Price Discrimination,
and Equality of Opportunity in Higher Education:
Evidence from Texas. American Economic Journal:
Economic Policy, 11.4, 31–65. Andrews, Rodney,
Imberman, Scott, Lovenheim, Michael & Stange,
Kevin (Aug. 2022). The Returns to College Major
Choice: Average and Distributional Effects, Career
Trajectories, and Earnings Variability. NBER
Working Paper 30331.
325 Mountjoy, Jack & Hickman, Brent (Sept. 2021).
The Returns to College(s): Relative Value-Added
and Match Effects in Higher Education. NBER
Working Paper 29276.
326 Note that both the ‘‘raw’’ and fully controlled
regressions include indicators for credential level,
as enrollment is not permitted to move across
credential levels in our budget simulations other
than modest shift from 2-year programs to lowerdivision four-year programs.
327 Hendren, Nathaniel & Sprung-Keyser, Ben
(2020). A Unified Welfare Analysis of Government
Policies. Quarterly Journal of Economics 135 (3):
1209–1318.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Fiscal Externality Benefit
The increased earnings of program
graduates would generate additional
Federal and State tax revenue and
reductions in transfer program
expenditure. To the earnings gain, we
multiply an average marginal tax and
transfer rate of 18.6 percent to estimate
the fiscal benefit. This rate was
computed in Hendren and SprungKeyser (2020) specifically to estimate
the fiscal externality of earnings gains
stemming from improvement in college
quality, so it is appropriate for use in
our setting.327 The rate is derived from
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
2016 CBO estimates and includes
Federal and State income taxes and
transfers from the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
but excludes payroll taxes, housing
vouchers, and other safety-net programs.
Note that this benefit is not included in
our budget impact estimates.
Instructional Spending Cost and
Transfer
To determine the additional cost of
educating students that shift from one
type of program to another or the cost
savings from students who chose not to
enroll, we estimate the aggregate annual
instructional spending under the
baseline and policy scenarios and take
the difference. We used the
instructional expense per FTE enrollee
data from IPEDS to calculate the
enrollment-weighted average
institutional-level instructional expense
per FTE student for programs by risk
group and performance result,
70163
separately for GE programs and non-GE
programs. Average spending for
programs that have become ineligible is
assumed to be the average of the three
failing categories, weighted by the
enrollment share in these categories.
These estimates are reported in Table
6.8. We estimate aggregate spending by
program group by multiplying
enrollment from 2023 through 2033 by
average spending.
TABLE 6.8—AVERAGE INSTRUCTIONAL COST PER FTE BY GROUP
GE Programs:
Proprietary 2yr or less ............................................................................
Public/NP 2yr or less ..............................................................................
Bachelor Lower .......................................................................................
Bachelor Upper .......................................................................................
Graduate .................................................................................................
Non-GE Programs:
Public/NP 2yr or less ..............................................................................
Bachelor Lower .......................................................................................
Bachelor Upper .......................................................................................
Graduate .................................................................................................
Note that since we are using
institution-level rather than programlevel spending, this will not fully
capture spending differences between
undergraduate and graduate enrollment,
between upper and lower division, and
across field of study.328
To calculate the transfer of
instructional expenses from failing to
passing programs, we multiply the
average instructional expense per
enrollee shown in Table 6.7 by the
estimated number of annual student
transfers for 2023 to 2033 from each risk
group and failing category.
Student Aid Transfers
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
To calculate the amounts of student
aid that could transfer with students
each year, we multiply the estimated
number of students receiving title IV,
HEA program funds transferring from
ineligible or failing GE and non-GE
programs to passing programs in each
risk category each year by the average
Pell grant, Stafford subsidized loan,
unsubsidized loan, PLUS loan, and
328 This may cause our estimates to slightly
understate the instructional cost impact since
failing programs are disproportionately in lowerearning fields and lower credential levels, which
tend to have lower instructional costs. Though we
anticipate most movement will be within field and
credential level, which would mute this effect. See
Hemelt, Steven W., Stange, Kevin M., Furquim,
Fernando, Simon, Andrew & Sawyer, John E.
(2021). Why Is Math Cheaper than English?
Understanding Cost Differences in Higher
Education. Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 39(2),
pages 397–435.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Pass
Fall D/E
Fail EP only
Fail both
Ineligible
................
4,341
7,325
3,668
3,668
5,294
................
6,408
11,263
11,263
15,666
................
3,007
5,859
2,655
2,655
3,837
................
5,187
7,563
7,563
16,434
........................
4,442
4,984
3,047
3,047
1,837
........................
5,959
9,036
9,036
7,528
..................
3,990
3,688
3,644
3,644
5,151
..................
4,361
12,021
12,021
24,355
....................
4,106
4,873
2,728
2,728
3,910
....................
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
GRAD PLUS loan per enrollment in the
same categories.
To annualize the amount of benefits,
costs, and title IV, HEA program fund
transfers from 2023 to 2033, we
calculate the net present value (NPV) of
the yearly amounts using a discount rate
of 3 percent and a discount rate of 7
percent and annualize it over 10 years.
Financial Responsibility,
Administrative Capability, Certification
Procedures, and Ability to Benefit that
were included in the NPRM published
on May 19, 2023, will be addressed in
a forthcoming separate document.
7. Net Budget Impacts
These final regulations are estimated
to have a net Federal budget impact of
$¥13.8 billion, consisting of $¥7.4
billion in reduced Pell grants and $¥6.4
billion for loan cohorts 2024 to 2033.329
A cohort reflects all loans originated in
a given fiscal year. Consistent with the
requirements of the Credit Reform Act
of 1990, budget cost estimates for the
student loan programs reflect the
estimated net present value of all future
non-administrative Federal costs
associated with a cohort of loans. The
baseline for estimating the cost of these
final regulations is the President’s
Budget for 2024 (PB2024) as modified
for the finalization of the SAVE plan
included in the final rule published July
10, 2023.330 This estimated net budget
impact addresses the GE and Financial
Transparency provisions, as described
below. The provisions related to
The final regulations are estimated to
shift enrollment towards programs with
lower debt-to-earnings or higher median
earnings or both, and away from
programs that fail either of the two
performance metrics. The vast majority
of students are assumed to resume their
education at the same or another
program in the event they are warned
about poor program performance or if
their program loses eligibility. The final
regulations are also estimated to reduce
overall enrollment, as some students
decide to not enroll. Table 7.1
summarize the main enrollment results
for non-GE programs. Enrollment in
non-GE programs is expected to increase
by about 0.6 percent relative to baseline
over the budget period. There is a
modest enrollment shift towards
programs that pass both metrics, with a
particularly large (proportionate)
reduction in the share of enrollment in
programs that fail D/E. By the end of the
analysis window, 96.0 percent of
enrollment is expected to be in passing
programs.
329 Since the policy is not estimated to shift
enrollment until AY 2026 (which includes part of
FY 2025), we present enrollment and budget
impacts starting in 2025. Impacts in both AY and
FY 2024 are zero.
330 88 FR 43820 (July 10, 2023).
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Gainful Employment and Financial
Transparency
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70164
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 7.1—PRIMARY ENROLLMENT ESTIMATE
[Non-GE programs]
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
Total Aggregate Enrollment (millions)
Baseline .............................................................................................................
Policy .................................................................................................................
14.12
14.12
13.97
14.01
13.84
13.89
13.71
13.78
13.59
13.66
13.47
13.54
13.36
13.43
13.26
13.33
13.17
13.22
Percent of Enrollment by Program Performance
Pass:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
Fail D/E:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
Fail EP:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
Fail Both:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
Table 7.2 reports comparable
estimates for GE programs. Note that for
GE programs we estimate enrollment in
two additional categories: Pre-Ineligible,
i.e., programs that would be ineligible
for title IV, HEA aid the following year;
and Ineligible. Enrollment in GE
95.9
95.9
96.0
95.7
96.0
96.1
96.1
96.3
96.1
96.5
96.1
96.5
96.2
96.6
96.2
96.6
96.2
96.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.6
1.2
1.6
1.2
1.6
1.3
1.6
1.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.2
1.9
2.1
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.3
programs is projected to decline by 9
percent relative to baseline, with the
largest marginal decline in the first-year
programs become ineligible. There is a
large enrollment shift towards programs
that pass both metrics, with a
particularly large reduction in the share
of enrollment in programs that fail EP.
By the end of the analysis window, 95.0
percent of enrollment is expected to be
in passing programs, compared to 71.8
percent in the baseline scenario.
TABLE 7.2—PRIMARY ENROLLMENT ESTIMATE
[GE programs]
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
Total Aggregate Enrollment (millions)
Baseline .............................................................................................................
Policy .................................................................................................................
2.63
2.63
2.61
2.47
2.60
2.43
2.60
2.43
2.59
2.42
2.59
2.41
2.59
2.39
2.59
2.37
2.60
2.34
Percent of Enrollment by Program Performance
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Pass:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
Fail D/E:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
Fail EP:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
Fail Both:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
Pre-Inelig:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
Inelig:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
For non-GE programs, these shifts
occur primarily across programs that
have different performance in the same
loan risk category, with a very modest
shift from public and nonprofit two-year
and less programs to lower-division 4-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
76.2
76.2
75.7
85.1
75.3
91.5
74.8
93.5
74.3
94.3
73.8
94.6
73.3
94.8
72.8
94.8
72.3
94.9
6.5
6.5
6.4
2.7
6.3
1.5
6.2
1.6
6.0
1.6
5.9
1.6
5.8
1.6
5.6
1.6
5.5
1.6
13.9
13.9
14.4
1.9
14.9
1.2
15.5
1.3
16.0
1.3
16.6
1.4
17.2
1.4
17.8
1.4
18.4
1.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.9
0.0
3.3
0.0
1.6
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.0
1.8
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
year programs. This is shown in Table
7.3. Shifts away from the public and
nonprofit two-year sector within non-GE
programs is partially offset from shifts
into these programs from failing GE
programs. Recall that in ‘‘Transfer
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Causes Net Enrollment Increase in Some
Sectors’’ above we showed that the vast
majority of community colleges would
gain enrollment from the regulations.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70165
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 7.3—PRIMARY ENROLLMENT ESTIMATES BY RISK GROUP
[Non-GE programs]
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
Projected Total Enrollment by Loan Risk Category (Millions)
Public/NP 2-year & below:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
4-year (lower):
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
4-year (upper):
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
Graduate:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
3.02
3.02
2.91
2.92
2.80
2.82
2.70
2.72
2.61
2.62
2.51
2.53
2.42
2.44
2.34
2.35
2.25
2.26
6.10
6.10
6.03
6.04
5.96
5.99
5.90
5.93
5.83
5.87
5.77
5.82
5.71
5.76
5.65
5.70
5.59
5.64
2.57
2.57
2.55
2.55
2.54
2.54
2.52
2.53
2.50
2.51
2.49
2.49
2.47
2.48
2.45
2.46
2.44
2.45
2.43
2.43
2.48
2.49
2.53
2.54
2.59
2.59
2.64
2.65
2.70
2.70
2.76
2.76
2.82
2.82
2.88
2.87
Percent of Enrollment by Loan Risk Category
Public/NP 2-year & below:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
4-year (lower):
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
4-year (upper):
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
Graduate:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
Table 7.4—reports a similar
breakdown for GE programs. Shifts to
passing programs are accompanied by a
21.38
21.38
20.82
20.87
20.27
20.32
19.73
19.77
19.19
19.22
18.66
18.67
18.14
18.13
17.62
17.61
17.11
17.09
43.19
43.19
43.14
43.13
43.09
43.10
43.02
43.06
42.94
43.01
42.84
42.95
42.73
42.87
42.62
42.77
42.48
42.66
18.20
18.20
18.26
18.24
18.33
18.29
18.38
18.33
18.42
18.38
18.45
18.42
18.48
18.46
18.50
18.49
18.51
18.51
17.23
17.23
17.77
17.61
18.32
17.50
18.88
17.64
19.46
17.73
20.05
17.76
20.65
17.76
21.26
17.75
21.89
17.72
shift away from proprietary two-year
and below programs and towards public
and nonprofit programs of similar
length, along with a more modest shift
towards lower-division 4-year programs.
TABLE 7.4—PRIMARY ENROLLMENT ESTIMATES BY RISK GROUP
[GE programs]
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
Projected Total Enrollment by Loan Risk Category (Millions)
Prop. 2-year & below:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
Public/NP 2-year & below:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
4-year (lower):
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
4-year (upper):
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
Graduate:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
0.72
0.72
0.75
0.62
0.77
0.59
0.80
0.59
0.83
0.60
0.86
0.60
0.89
0.61
0.92
0.61
0.95
0.61
0.53
0.53
0.52
0.55
0.51
0.56
0.49
0.57
0.48
0.57
0.46
0.56
0.45
0.56
0.44
0.55
0.43
0.55
0.78
0.78
0.77
0.74
0.75
0.73
0.74
0.72
0.73
0.72
0.71
0.70
0.70
0.69
0.69
0.68
0.68
0.67
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.17
0.16
0.17
0.15
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.37
0.38
0.37
0.38
0.37
0.38
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.37
0.36
0.37
0.36
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Percent of Enrollment by Loan Risk Category
Prop. 2-year & below:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
Public/NP 2-year & below:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
4-year (lower):
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
4-year (upper):
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
Graduate:
Baseline .....................................................................................................
Policy ..........................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00163
27.52
27.52
28.58
25.12
29.65
24.33
30.77
24.40
31.91
24.69
33.05
25.03
34.22
25.40
35.41
25.77
36.63
26.14
20.36
20.36
19.88
22.18
19.44
23.06
18.94
23.36
18.44
23.45
17.96
23.46
17.47
23.44
16.97
23.40
16.44
23.35
29.76
29.76
29.33
29.99
28.90
29.98
28.48
29.79
28.05
29.54
27.62
29.28
27.18
29.01
26.76
28.74
26.33
28.47
7.79
7.79
7.62
7.73
7.44
7.55
7.27
7.36
7.09
7.18
6.91
7.01
6.73
6.86
6.55
6.71
6.37
6.56
14.58
14.58
14.59
14.99
14.57
15.08
14.55
15.09
14.51
15.14
14.46
15.21
14.39
15.30
14.32
15.39
14.23
15.48
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70166
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
As reported in Tables 7.5 and 7.6, we
estimate that the regulations would
result in a reduction of title IV, HEA aid
between fiscal years 2025 and 2033.
TABLE 7.5—ESTIMATED ANNUAL CHANGE IN TITLE IV, HEA AID VOLUME RELATIVE TO BASELINE
[millions, $2019]
2025
Non-GE Programs:
Pell .....................................................
Subs. ..................................................
Unsub. ................................................
Grad PLUS .........................................
Par. PLUS ..........................................
GE Programs:
Pell .....................................................
Subs. ..................................................
Unsub. ................................................
Grad PLUS .........................................
Par. PLUS ..........................................
Total:
Pell .....................................................
Subs. ..................................................
Unsub. ................................................
Grad PLUS .........................................
Par. PLUS ..........................................
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
Total
25
9
18
4
7
57
16
10
(25)
30
89
11
(45)
(91)
52
101
8
(90)
(147)
61
108
8
(120)
(183)
65
116
10
(143)
(205)
68
118
10
(164)
(221)
67
116
9
(185)
(235)
66
110
9
(209)
(248)
64
840
92
(928)
(1,353)
480
(199)
(149)
(226)
(20)
(18)
(511)
(380)
(576)
(51)
(48)
(808)
(472)
(707)
(63)
(59)
(936)
(486)
(717)
(62)
(59)
(983)
(501)
(732)
(60)
(64)
(1,050)
(529)
(765)
(58)
(74)
(1,138)
(565)
(809)
(56)
(86)
(1,247)
(606)
(861)
(55)
(101)
(1,376)
(653)
(921)
(55)
(117)
(8,248)
(4,340)
(6,313)
(479)
(625)
(174)
(139)
(208)
(16)
(11)
(455)
(364)
(566)
(77)
(18)
(719)
(461)
(752)
(154)
(7)
(835)
(477)
(807)
(209)
2
(875)
(493)
(852)
(242)
1
(934)
(519)
(908)
(263)
(6)
(1,020)
(555)
(973)
(278)
(19)
(1,131)
(597)
(1,046)
(290)
(35)
(1,266)
(644)
(1,130)
(303)
(53)
(7,409)
(4,248)
(7,241)
(1,832)
(145)
TABLE 7.6—ESTIMATED ANNUAL PERCENT CHANGE IN TITLE IV, HEA AID VOLUME BY FISCAL YEAR
(%)
2025
Non-GE Programs:
Pell .....................................................
Subs. ..................................................
Unsub. ................................................
Grad PLUS .........................................
Par. PLUS ..........................................
GE Programs:
Pell .....................................................
Subs. ..................................................
Unsub. ................................................
Grad PLUS .........................................
Par. PLUS ..........................................
Total:
Pell .....................................................
Subs. ..................................................
Unsub. ................................................
Grad PLUS .........................................
Par. PLUS ..........................................
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
Total
0.25
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.32
0.15
0.04
¥0.47
0.33
0.35
0.11
¥0.20
¥1.62
0.56
0.37
0.08
¥0.40
¥2.48
0.66
0.39
0.08
¥0.53
¥2.95
0.70
0.40
0.10
¥0.63
¥3.24
0.73
0.37
0.10
¥0.72
¥3.42
0.73
0.36
0.09
¥0.81
¥3.56
0.73
0.33
0.09
¥0.90
¥3.68
0.72
0.35
0.10
¥0.46
¥2.48
0.58
¥9.46
¥5.36
¥4.49
¥2.83
¥2.54
¥14.53
¥13.71
¥11.47
¥7.12
¥6.62
¥14.66
¥17.00
¥14.12
¥8.59
¥7.90
¥14.58
¥17.43
¥14.32
¥8.27
¥7.67
¥15.06
¥17.91
¥14.56
¥7.84
¥8.16
¥15.91
¥18.81
¥15.16
¥7.57
¥9.26
¥16.97
¥19.97
¥15.98
¥7.40
¥10.70
¥18.18
¥21.30
¥16.95
¥7.30
¥12.35
¥19.54
¥22.76
¥18.04
¥7.25
¥14.14
¥15.44
¥17.18
¥13.91
¥7.16
¥8.97
¥1.46
¥1.03
¥0.77
¥0.28
¥0.11
¥2.32
¥2.71
¥2.08
¥1.25
¥0.18
¥2.36
¥3.46
¥2.76
¥2.42
¥0.07
¥2.37
¥3.61
¥2.95
¥3.12
0.02
¥2.48
¥3.75
¥3.09
¥3.49
0.01
¥2.68
¥3.97
¥3.27
¥3.70
¥0.06
¥2.95
¥4.28
¥3.48
¥3.84
¥0.19
¥3.24
¥4.63
¥3.72
¥3.94
¥0.35
¥3.61
¥5.03
¥3.99
¥4.04
¥0.53
¥2.59
¥3.59
¥2.91
¥2.99
¥0.16
Table 7.7 reports the annual net
budget impact after accounting for
estimated loan repayment. We estimate
a net Federal budget impact of $¥13.8
billion, consisting of $¥7.4 billion in
reduced Pell grants and $¥6.4 billion
for loan cohorts 2024 to 2033.
TABLE 7.7—ESTIMATED ANNUAL NET BUDGET IMPACT
[Outlays in millions]
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
Total
Pell ............................................................
Subs. .........................................................
Unsub. .......................................................
PLUS (Par & Grad) ...................................
Consol .......................................................
¥174
¥39
¥48
¥2
¥12
¥455
¥114
¥149
¥22
¥36
¥719
¥153
¥218
¥53
¥80
¥835
¥158
¥237
¥79
¥145
¥875
¥158
¥246
¥90
¥229
¥934
¥160
¥255
¥98
¥323
¥1,020
¥166
¥268
¥102
¥431
¥1,131
¥172
¥281
¥104
¥537
¥1,266
¥181
¥300
¥106
¥641
¥7,409
¥1,302
¥2,003
¥656
¥2,435
Total ...................................................
¥275
¥776
¥1,223
¥1,454
¥1,598
¥1,770
¥1,987
¥2,225
¥2,494
¥13,805
The Department’s calculations of the
net budget impacts represent our best
estimate of the effect of the regulations
on the Federal student aid programs. As
noted in the NPRM published June,
realized budget impacts will be heavily
influenced by actual program
performance, student response to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
program performance, student
borrowing and repayment behavior, and
changes in enrollment because of the
regulations. For example, if students,
including prospective students, react
more strongly to the warnings,
acknowledgment requirement, or
potential ineligibility of programs than
PO 00000
Frm 00164
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
anticipated and, if many of these
students leave postsecondary education,
the impact on Pell grants and loans
could increase. Similarly, if institutions
react to the regulations by improving
performance, the assumed enrollment
and aid amounts could be overstated,
though this would be very beneficial to
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70167
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Primary Estimates
students. Finally, if students’ repayment
behavior is different than that assumed
in the model, the realized budget impact
could be larger or smaller than our
estimate.
We estimate that by shifting
enrollment to higher financial-value
programs, the regulations would
increase student’s earnings, resulting in
net after-tax gains to students and
benefits for taxpayers in the form of
additional tax revenue. Table 8.1 reports
the estimated aggregate earnings gain for
each cohort of completers, separately for
GE and non-GE programs, and the
8. Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A–4, we
have prepared an accounting statement
showing the classification of the
benefits, costs, and transfers associated
with the provisions of these regulations.
cumulative (not discounted) earnings
gain over the budget window. The
regulation is estimated to generate $32.3
billion of additional earnings gains over
the budget window, both from GE and
non-GE programs. Using the approach
described in ‘‘Methodology for Costs,
Benefits, and Transfers,’’ we expect
$26.3 billion to benefit students and
$6.0 billion to benefit Federal and State
governments and taxpayers.331
TABLE 8.1—ANNUAL AND CUMULATIVE EARNINGS GAIN AND DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN STUDENTS AND GOVERNMENT
[Millions, $2019]
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
Total
Single-year Earnings Gains of Each Cohort of Completers
Non-GE .....................................................
GE .............................................................
Total ...................................................
0
0
0
139
232
370
411
470
881
542
570
1,112
598
590
1,189
596
561
1,157
566
510
1,075
497
447
944
421
376
797
3,770
3,755
7,525
3,551
2,891
661
4,708
3,832
876
5,783
4,708
1,076
6,728
5,476
1,251
7,525
6,125
1,400
32,280
26,276
6,004
Cumulative Earnings Gain
Cumulative gain ........................................
Student share ............................................
Gov’t share ................................................
0
0
0
370
302
69
1,251
1,019
233
2,363
1,923
440
(net increase in spending) and GE
programs (net decrease in spending).
Spending is reduced in the first year of
the policy due to the decrease in
enrollment, but then increases as more
students transfer to more costly
programs.
changes in instructional spending,
overall and separately for GE and nonGE programs. The net effect is an
increase in aggregate cumulative
instructional spending of $2.7 billion
(not discounted), though this masks
differences between non-GE programs
The final rule could also alter
aggregate instructional spending, by
shifting enrollment to higher-cost
institutions (an increase in spending) or
by reducing aggregate enrollment (a
decrease in spending). Table 8.2 reports
estimated annual and cumulative
TABLE 8.2—INSTRUCTIONAL SPENDING CHANGE
[Millions, $2019]
2025
Non-GE .....................................................
GE .............................................................
Total ...................................................
2026
0
0
I
0
2027
381
¥536
I
¥155
2028
685
¥456
I
230
2029
836
¥336
I
500
2030
904
¥301
I
603
909
¥333
I
576
some students to choose non-enrollment
instead of a low value program. Table
8.3 reports the number of enrolments
that transfer programs, remain enrolled
at ineligible programs, or decline to
enroll in postsecondary education
altogether. We estimate that almost 1.5
The rule would create transfers
between students, the Federal
Government, and among postsecondary
institutions by shifting enrollment
between programs, removing title IV,
HEA eligibility for GE programs that fail
a GE metric multiple times, and causing
2031
2032
883
¥399
I
485
2033
800
¥481
I
319
Total
719
¥576
I
143
6,118
¥3,417
I
2,701
million enrollments would transfer from
low financial value programs to better
programs over the decade. A more
modest number would remain enrolled
at programs that are no longer eligible
for title IV, HEA aid.
TABLE 8.3—ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT OF TRANSFERS AND INELIGIBLE UNDER THE REGULATION
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
2025
Non-GE:
Transfer ..............................................
Inelig ...................................................
GE:
Transfer ..............................................
Inelig ...................................................
Total:
Transfer ..............................................
Inelig ...................................................
331 The earnings gains estimate in the NPRM did
not include earnings gains over the full budget
window, thereby underestimating that gain. For this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
Total
0
0
33,481
0
96,886
0
81,495
0
72,531
0
67,660
0
64,896
0
63,184
0
62,009
0
542,142
0
0
0
204,541
0
195,213
53,244
132,844
43,729
96,996
30,098
79,268
22,035
70,668
17,816
66,360
15,631
64,057
14,466
909,948
197,019
0
0
238,022
0
292,099
53,244
214,339
43,729
169,527
30,098
146,928
22,035
135,565
17,816
129,544
15,631
126,066
14,466
1,452,089
197,019
final RIA, we recalculated earnings gains to account
for this more comprehensive budget impact, which
PO 00000
Frm 00165
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
resulted in an increase in estimated earnings gains
relative to the NPRM.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70168
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
students as they shift from lowperforming programs to higherperforming programs, which is
presented in Table 8.4.
and Pell grant recipients to the Federal
Government. The combined reduction
in title IV, HEA expenditures was
presented in the Net Budget Impacts
section above. Transfers also include
title IV, HEA program funds that follow
The resulting reductions in
expenditures on title IV, HEA program
funds from enrollment declines and
continued enrollment at non-eligible
institutions are classified as transfers
from affected student loan borrowers
TABLE 8.4—ESTIMATED TITLE IV, HEA AID TRANSFERRED FROM FAILING TO PASSING PROGRAMS UNDER THE
REGULATION
[$2019, millions]
2025
Non-GE .....................................................
GE .............................................................
Total ...................................................
2026
0
0
I
0
Transfers are neither costs nor
benefits, but rather the reallocation of
resources from one party to another.
Table 8.5 provides our best estimate of
the changes in annual monetized
benefits, costs, and transfers as a result
of these regulations. Our baseline
estimate with a discount rate of 3
percent is that the regulation would
2027
145
1,109
I
1,255
2028
458
1,057
I
1,515
2029
388
720
I
1,108
2030
351
530
I
880
2031
330
434
I
generate $3.0 billion of annualized
benefits against $0.4 billion of
annualized costs and $1.3 billion of
transfers to the Federal Government and
$0.7 billion transfers from failing
programs to passing programs. A
discount rate of 7 percent results in $2.7
billion of benefits against $0.4 billion of
annualized costs and $1.2 billion of
764
2032
318
387
I
705
2033
311
362
I
674
Total
307
349
I
656
2,608
4,948
I
7,557
transfers to the Federal Government and
$0.7 billion transfers from failing
programs to passing programs. Note that
the accounting statement does not
include benefits that are unquantified,
such as benefits for students associated
with lower default and better credit and
benefits for institutions from improved
information about their value.
TABLE 8.5—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT FOR PRIMARY SCENARIO
Annualized Impact
(millions, $2023)
Discount rate = 3%
Discount rate = 7%
Benefits
Earnings gain (net of taxes) for students ........................................................................................
Additional Federal and State tax revenue and reductions in transfer program expenditure (not
included in budget impact) ...........................................................................................................
For students, lower default, better credit leading to family and business formation, more retirement savings. For institutions, increased enrollment and revenue associated with new enrollments from improved information about value ............................................................................
2,444
2,213
559
506
258
90
12
4
241
93
12
4
709
667
607
747
564
732
Not quantified.
Costs
Reduced instructional spending ......................................................................................................
Additional reporting by institutions ...................................................................................................
Warning/acknowledgment by institutions and students ..................................................................
Implementation of reporting, website, acknowledgment by ED ......................................................
Time/moving cost for transfers; Investments to improve program quality ......................................
Not quantified.
Transfers
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Transfer of Federal Pell dollars to Federal Government from enrollment reduction ......................
Transfer of Federal loan dollars to Federal Government from reduced borrowing and greater repayment ........................................................................................................................................
Transfer of aid dollars from non-passing programs to passing programs ......................................
Transfer of State aid dollars from failing programs for dropouts ....................................................
Not quantified.
Sensitivity Analysis
based on the research literature, but
these quantities are uncertain. The
alternative models adjust transfer and
dropout rates for all transfer groups to
the rates for high alternatives and few
alternatives, respectively, as shown in
Table 6.5. As reported in Tables 8.6 and
8.7, we estimate that the regulations
We conducted the simulations of the
rule while varying several key
assumptions. Specifically, we provide
estimates of the change in title IV, HEA
volumes using varied assumptions
about student transitions, student
dropout, program performance, and the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
earnings gains associated with
enrollment shifts. We believe these to be
the main sources of uncertainty in our
model.
Varying Levels of Student Transition
Our primary analysis assumes rates of
transfer and dropout for GE programs
PO 00000
Frm 00166
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70169
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
would result in a reduction of title IV,
HEA aid between fiscal years 2025 and
2033, regardless of if all students have
the highest or lowest amount of transfer
alternatives.
TABLE 8.6—HIGH TRANSFER SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS—ESTIMATED ANNUAL CHANGE IN TITLE IV, HEA AID VOLUME
RELATIVE TO BASELINE
[Millions, $2019]
2025
Non-GE Programs:
Pell .....................................................
Subs. ..................................................
Unsub. ................................................
Grad PLUS .........................................
Par. PLUS ..........................................
GE Programs:
Pell .....................................................
Subs. ..................................................
Unsub. ................................................
Grad PLUS .........................................
Par. PLUS ..........................................
Total
Pell .....................................................
Subs. ..................................................
Unsub. ................................................
Grad PLUS .........................................
Par. PLUS ..........................................
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
Total
29
10
20
4
8
63
18
3
(37)
32
94
12
(67)
(121)
53
101
7
(119)
(184)
61
105
5
(152)
(223)
65
108
5
(176)
(247)
68
107
4
(198)
(263)
68
104
3
(220)
(277)
68
97
1
(244)
(290)
67
808
66
(1,153)
(1,639)
491
(195)
(149)
(226)
(21)
(15)
(484)
(368)
(558)
(52)
(40)
(754)
(446)
(669)
(61)
(48)
(867)
(460)
(679)
(59)
(49)
(920)
(481)
(701)
(57)
(56)
(999)
(514)
(741)
(55)
(68)
(1,097)
(553)
(790)
(54)
(82)
(1,213)
(597)
(845)
(53)
(97)
(1,348)
(645)
(906)
(52)
(114)
(7,877)
(4,214)
(6,115)
(464)
(568)
(166)
(138)
(206)
(17)
(7)
(419)
(350)
(555)
(89)
(8)
(659)
(434)
(736)
(182)
5
(766)
(453)
(798)
(244)
12
(817)
(474)
(854)
(281)
9
(891)
(506)
(917)
(302)
0
(990)
(545)
(988)
(317)
(13)
(1,110)
(589)
(1,064)
(329)
(29)
(1,251)
(638)
(1,150)
(342)
(47)
(7,069)
(4,127)
(7,268)
(2,103)
(77)
TABLE 8.7—LOW TRANSFER SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS—ESTIMATED ANNUAL CHANGE IN TITLE IV, HEA AID VOLUME
RELATIVE TO BASELINE
[Millions, $2019]
2025
Non-GE Programs:
Pell .....................................................
Subs. ..................................................
Unsub. ................................................
Grad PLUS .........................................
Par. PLUS ..........................................
GE Programs:
Pell .....................................................
Subs. ..................................................
Unsub. ................................................
Grad PLUS .........................................
Par. PLUS ..........................................
Total:
Pell .....................................................
Subs. ..................................................
Unsub. ................................................
Grad PLUS .........................................
Par. PLUS ..........................................
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
Total
16
6
11
2
5
43
12
28
7
26
73
12
22
(3)
49
95
12
6
(24)
61
113
14
(6)
(39)
67
129
17
(16)
(49)
70
137
17
(29)
(57)
70
142
17
(44)
(64)
68
142
16
(62)
(72)
66
890
123
(91)
(300)
482
(187)
(136)
(208)
(19)
(20)
(550)
(399)
(607)
(54)
(62)
(921)
(546)
(825)
(74)
(87)
(1,126)
(570)
(851)
(75)
(89)
(1,184)
(578)
(856)
(72)
(91)
(1,236)
(595)
(874)
(69)
(98)
(1,302)
(622)
(904)
(67)
(107)
(1,395)
(657)
(948)
(66)
(120)
(1,513)
(699)
(1,001)
(65)
(134)
(9,414)
(4,803)
(7,074)
(561)
(808)
(170)
(131)
(197)
(16)
(15)
(508)
(386)
(579)
(47)
(37)
(848)
(534)
(803)
(77)
(37)
(1,030)
(557)
(846)
(99)
(28)
(1,070)
(564)
(862)
(111)
(24)
(1,106)
(579)
(890)
(118)
(28)
(1,164)
(605)
(934)
(124)
(37)
(1,253)
(640)
(992)
(130)
(52)
(1,371)
(683)
(1,063)
(137)
(69)
(8,520)
(4,680)
(7,165)
(860)
(326)
No Program Improvement
Our primary analysis assumes that
both non-GE and GE programs improve
performance after failing either the D/E
or EP metric and that GE programs that
pass both metrics still improve
performance in response to the rule. We
incorporate this by increasing the fail to
pass program transition rate by 5
percentage points for each type of
program failure after 2026 for GE and
non-GE programs, by reducing the rate
of repeated failure by 5 percentage
points for GE and non-GE programs, and
by increasing the rate of a repeated
passing result by two and a half
percentage points for GE programs. The
alternative model will assume no
program improvement in response to
failing metrics.
As reported in Table 8.8, we estimate
that the regulations would result in a
reduction of title IV, HEA aid between
fiscal years 2025 and 2033, regardless of
if programs show improvement.
TABLE 8.8—NO PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS—ESTIMATED ANNUAL CHANGE IN TITLE IV, HEA AID
VOLUME RELATIVE TO BASELINE
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
[Millions, $2019]
2025
Non-GE Programs:
Pell .....................................................
Subs. ..................................................
Unsub. ................................................
Grad PLUS .........................................
Par. PLUS ..........................................
GE Programs:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
2026
25
9
18
4
7
PO 00000
57
16
10
(25)
30
Frm 00167
2027
2028
94
14
(31)
(79)
54
118
17
(53)
(114)
68
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2029
142
21
(67)
(138)
78
2030
165
27
(76)
(153)
85
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
2031
183
31
(85)
(164)
89
10OCR2
2032
197
34
(96)
(173)
92
2033
207
37
(109)
(182)
93
Total
1,188
206
(489)
(1,026)
597
70170
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 8.8—NO PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS—ESTIMATED ANNUAL CHANGE IN TITLE IV, HEA AID
VOLUME RELATIVE TO BASELINE—Continued
[Millions, $2019]
2025
Pell .....................................................
Subs. ..................................................
Unsub. ................................................
Grad PLUS .........................................
Par. PLUS ..........................................
Total:
Pell .....................................................
Subs. ..................................................
Unsub. ................................................
Grad PLUS .........................................
Par. PLUS ..........................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Jkt 262001
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
Total
(511)
(380)
(576)
(51)
(48)
(815)
(477)
(716)
(64)
(62)
(962)
(502)
(750)
(68)
(69)
(1,039)
(532)
(792)
(70)
(79)
(1,137)
(571)
(847)
(72)
(94)
(1,252)
(617)
(910)
(74)
(110)
(1,387)
(668)
(980)
(76)
(128)
(1,541)
(723)
(1,056)
(79)
(147)
(8,843)
(4,618)
(6,853)
(575)
(755)
(174)
(139)
(208)
(16)
(11)
(455)
(364)
(566)
(77)
(18)
(721)
(462)
(747)
(143)
(8)
(846)
(485)
(803)
(182)
(0)
(898)
(510)
(858)
(209)
(1)
(973)
(544)
(923)
(226)
(8)
(1,069)
(586)
(996)
(238)
(21)
(1,190)
(634)
(1,076)
(250)
(36)
(1,334)
(686)
(1,165)
(261)
(54)
(7,660)
(4,411)
(7,342)
(1,602)
(157)
332 In unpublished analysis of approximately 600
programs (defined by 2-digit CIP by institution) at
four-year public colleges in Texas as part of their
published work, Andrews & Stange (2019) find that
a 1 percent increase in log program earnings
(unadjusted) is associated with a .72 percent
increase in log program earnings after controlling
for student race/ethnicity, limited English
proficiency, economic disadvantage, and
achievement test scores. Additionally controlling
for students’ college application and admissions
behavior reduces this to 0.62. Using the correlation
of institution-level average earnings and valueadded in Figure 2.1 of Hoxby (2018), we estimate
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
2027
(199)
(149)
(226)
(20)
(18)
Alternative Earnings Gain
Our primary analysis assumes that the
earnings change associated with shifts
in enrollment is equal to the difference
in average earnings between groups
defined by loan risk group, program
performance category, and whether the
program is a GE program or not,
multiplied by an adjustment factor
equal to 0.75. This adjustment factor
was derived from regression models
where we compared the earnings
difference between passing and failing
programs conditional on credential level
with and without a rich set of student
characteristics controls. The estimated
earnings gain associated with the rule
scales directly with the value of this
adjustment factor. A value of 1.0 (all of
the difference in average earnings
between groups would manifest as
earnings gain) would increase the total
annualized earnings gain for students
from $2.4 billion up to $3.3 billion (3
percent discount rate).
A value of 0.40 reduces it to $1.3
billion; a value of 0.20 reduces it to $0.7
billion. The net fiscal externality
increases or decreases proportionately.
Each of these two scenarios would
involve more of the raw earnings
difference between passing and failing
programs of the same credential level
being explained by factors we are not
able to measure (such as student
academic preparation) than those that
we are able to measure (such as race,
gender, parent education, family
income, and Pell receipt).332 Even at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
2026
these low values for the adjustment
factor, the estimated earnings benefits of
the rule by themselves outweigh the
estimated costs.
9. Distributional Consequences
The final regulations advance
distributional equity aims because the
benefits of the regulation—better
information, increased earnings, and
more manageable debt repayment—
would disproportionately be realized by
students who otherwise would have low
earnings. Students without access to
good information about program
performance tend to be more
disadvantaged; improved transparency
about program performance would be
particularly valuable to these students.
The final regulations improve program
quality in the undergraduate certificate
sector in particular, which, as
documented above, disproportionately
enrolls low-income students. Students
already attending high-quality colleges,
who tend to be more advantaged, would
be relatively unaffected by the
regulation. The major costs of the
program involve additional paperwork
and instructional spending, which are
not incurred by students directly.
10. Alternatives Considered
As part of the development of these
regulations, the Department engaged in
a negotiated rulemaking process in
which we received comments and
proposals from non-Federal negotiators
representing numerous impacted
constituencies. These included higher
education institutions, consumer
advocates, students, financial aid
administrators, accrediting agencies,
and States. Non-Federal negotiators
that an earnings gain of $10,000 is associated with
a value added gain of roughly $6,000 over the entire
sample, of roughly $4,000 for scores below 1200,
and of roughly $2,000 for scores below 1000. These
relationships imply parameter values of 0.72, 0.62,
0.60, 0.40, and 0.20, respectively. Again,
institution-level correlations may not be directly
comparable to program-level data.
PO 00000
Frm 00168
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
submitted a variety of proposals relating
to the issues under discussion.
Information about these proposals is
available on our negotiated rulemaking
website at www2.ed.gov/policy/
highered/reg/hearulemaking/2021/
index.html.
In response to comments received and
further internal consideration of these
final regulations, the Department
reviewed and considered various
changes to the proposed regulations
detailed in the NPRM. We described the
changes made in response to public
comments in the Analysis of Comments
and Changes section of this preamble.
We summarize below the major
proposals that we considered but
ultimately chose not to implement in
these regulations. In developing these
final regulations, we contemplated the
budgetary impact, administrative
burden, and anticipated effectiveness of
the options we considered.
D/E Rate Only
The Department considered using
only the D/E rates metric, consistent
with the 2014 Prior Rule. Tables 10.1
and 10.2 show the share of GE and nonGE programs and enrollment that would
fail under only the D/E metric compared
to our preferred rule that considers both
D/E and EP metrics. A greater number
of programs do not meet standards
when considering both D/E and EP
instead of D/E only, especially among
certificate programs.
As discussed earlier at length, the
D/E and EP measure distinct outcomes
of gainful employment, and the EP adds
an important protection for students and
taxpayers. Even small amounts of debt
can be unmanageable borrowers with
low earnings, as shown in the RIA and
in research.333 With the inclusion of the
333 See Brown, Meta et al. (2015). Looking at
Student Loan Defaults Through a Larger Window.
Liberty Street Economics, Fed. Reserve Bank of N.Y.
(https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/
2015/02/looking_at_student_loan_defaults_
through_a_larger_window/).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70171
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
EP, the Department affirms that
borrowers that postsecondary GE
programs should help students reach a
minimal level of labor market earnings.
TABLE 10.1—PERCENT OF GE STUDENTS AND PROGRAMS THAT FAIL UNDER D/E ONLY VS. D/E OR EP
Programs
Fail D/E only
Public:
UG Certificates .........................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...........................................................................................
Grad Certs ................................................................................................
Students
Fail D/E or EP
Fail D/E only
Fail D/E or EP
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.0
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.4
4.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.9
0.4
4.1
0.4
0.0
0.6
5.6
0.0
0.7
3.9
0.0
2.7
42.9
0.0
3.5
0.4
2.6
3.3
28.5
5.0
10.7
10.7
0.0
9.7
8.3
13.8
4.8
34.4
15.0
10.9
0.0
9.7
8.3
13.8
7.3
8.7
33.7
24.3
0.0
16.6
10.6
50.7
37.9
52.8
38.5
24.4
0.0
16.6
10.6
50.7
38.6
Total ...................................................................................................
Foreign Private:
UG Certificates .........................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...........................................................................................
Grad Certs ................................................................................................
7.7
23.0
20.2
34.1
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
84.2
0.0
0.0
84.2
Total ...................................................................................................
Foreign For-Profit:
Master’s ....................................................................................................
Doctoral ....................................................................................................
Professional ..............................................................................................
0.9
0.9
79.6
79.6
0.0
0.0
28.6
0.0
0.0
28.6
0.0
0.0
20.3
0.0
0.0
20.3
Total ...................................................................................................
11.8
11.8
17.2
17.2
Total ...................................................................................................
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates .........................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...........................................................................................
Grad Certs ................................................................................................
Total ...................................................................................................
Proprietary:
UG Certificates .........................................................................................
Associate ..................................................................................................
Bachelor’s .................................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...........................................................................................
Master’s ....................................................................................................
Doctoral ....................................................................................................
Professional ..............................................................................................
Grad Certs ................................................................................................
TABLE 10.2—PERCENT OF NON-GE PROGRAMS AND ENROLLMENT AT GE PROGRAMS THAT FAIL UNDER D/E ONLY VS.
D/E OR EP
Programs
Fail D/E only
Public:
Associate ..................................................................................................
Bachelor’s .................................................................................................
Master’s ....................................................................................................
Doctoral ....................................................................................................
Professional ..............................................................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Total ...................................................................................................
Private, Nonprofit:
Associate ..................................................................................................
Bachelor’s .................................................................................................
Master’s ....................................................................................................
Doctoral ....................................................................................................
Professional ..............................................................................................
Total ...................................................................................................
Foreign Private:
Associate ..................................................................................................
Bachelor’s .................................................................................................
Master’s ....................................................................................................
Doctoral ....................................................................................................
Professional ..............................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00169
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Students
Fail D/E or EP
Fail D/E only
Fail D/E or EP
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
3.3
1.7
1.4
0.3
0.2
3.3
0.5
1.3
1.2
2.6
7.5
7.8
1.8
1.2
2.6
7.5
0.5
1.2
1.0
4.5
2.6
0.6
1.7
1.9
16.7
3.3
0.9
1.9
1.9
17.5
22.5
2.7
4.1
15.5
34.1
24.7
4.3
4.7
15.5
34.7
1.2
1.5
5.8
7.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
3.4
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
3.4
0.0
1.2
1.8
0.0
20.7
0.0
1.2
1.9
0.0
20.7
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70172
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 10.2—PERCENT OF NON-GE PROGRAMS AND ENROLLMENT AT GE PROGRAMS THAT FAIL UNDER D/E ONLY VS.
D/E OR EP—Continued
Programs
Fail D/E only
Total ...................................................................................................
Alternative Earnings Thresholds
The Department examined the
consequences of two different ways of
computing the earnings threshold. For
the first, we computed the earnings
threshold as the annual earnings among
all respondents aged 25–34 in the ACS
who have a high school diploma or
GED, but no postsecondary education.
The second is the median annual
earnings among respondents aged 25–34
in the ACS who have a high school
diploma or GED, but no postsecondary
education, and who worked a full year
Fail D/E or EP
0.2
prior to being surveyed. These
measures, which are included in the
2022 PPD, straddle our preferred
threshold, which includes all
respondents in the labor force, but
excludes those that are not in the labor
force.
Tables 10.3 and 10.4 reports the share
of programs and enrollment that would
pass GE metrics under three different
earnings threshold methods, with our
approach in the middle column. The
share of enrollment in undergraduate
proprietary certificate programs that
would fail ranges from about 30 percent
Students
0.2
Fail D/E only
Fail D/E or EP
2.9
2.9
under the lowest threshold up to 61
percent under the highest threshold.
The failure rate for public
undergraduate certificate programs is
much lower than proprietary programs
under all three scenarios, ranging from
about 2 percent for the lowest threshold
to 9 percent under the highest. The
earnings threshold chosen would have a
much smaller impact on failure rates for
degree programs, which range from
about 34 percent to 42 percent of
enrollment for associate programs and
essentially no impact for bachelor’s
degree or higher programs.
TABLE 10.3—SHARE OF ENROLLMENT IN GE PROGRAMS THAT FAIL, BY WHERE EARNINGS THRESHOLD IS SET
% Failing
DTE + lower
EP
Public:
UG Certificates .........................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...........................................................................................
Grad Certs ................................................................................................
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates .........................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...........................................................................................
Grad Certs ................................................................................................
Proprietary:
UG Certificates .........................................................................................
Associate ..................................................................................................
Bachelor’s .................................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...........................................................................................
Master’s ....................................................................................................
Doctoral ....................................................................................................
Professional ..............................................................................................
Grad Certs ................................................................................................
Total
DTE +
medium EP
DTE + higher
EP
Number of
enrollees
1.7
0.0
0.4
4.4
0.0
0.4
9.1
0.0
0.4
869,600
12,600
41,900
25.8
0.0
2.7
40.5
0.0
2.7
43.0
0.0
4.7
77,900
7,900
35,700
30.0
33.9
24.3
0.0
16.6
10.6
50.7
38.3
50.8
37.1
24.3
0.0
16.6
10.6
50.7
38.6
61.2
42.4
24.7
0.0
16.6
10.6
50.7
38.6
549,900
326,800
675,800
800
240,000
54,000
12,100
10,800
Note: Enrollment counts rounded to the nearest hundred.
TABLE 10.4—SHARE OF GE PROGRAMS THAT FAIL, BY WHERE EARNINGS THRESHOLD IS SET
% Failing
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
DTE + lower
EP
Public:
UG Certificates .........................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...........................................................................................
Grad Certs ................................................................................................
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates .........................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...........................................................................................
Grad Certs ................................................................................................
Proprietary:
UG Certificates .........................................................................................
Associate ..................................................................................................
Bachelor’s .................................................................................................
Post-BA Certs ...........................................................................................
Master’s ....................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00170
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Total
DTE +
medium EP
DTE + higher
EP
Number of
Programs
0.6
0.0
0.1
1.0
0.0
0.1
1.6
0.0
0.1
19,00
900
1,900
2.7
0.0
0.6
4.7
0.0
0.6
5.5
0.0
0.6
1,400
600
1,400
20.8
10.8
10.5
0.0
9.6
32.0
13.8
10.6
0.0
9.6
38.0
17.6
11.2
0.0
9.6
3,200
1,700
1,000
50
500
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70173
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 10.4—SHARE OF GE PROGRAMS THAT FAIL, BY WHERE EARNINGS THRESHOLD IS SET—Continued
% Failing
DTE + lower
EP
Doctoral ....................................................................................................
Professional ..............................................................................................
Grad Certs ................................................................................................
Total
DTE +
medium EP
8.2
12.5
5.5
8.2
12.5
7.0
DTE + higher
EP
Number of
Programs
8.2
12.5
7.0
100
30
100
Note: Program counts rounded to the nearest 100, except where 50 or fewer.
Tables 10.5 and 10.6 illustrate this for
non-GE programs. As with GE programs,
the earnings threshold chosen would
have a relatively small impact on the
share of Bachelors’ or higher programs
that fail but would impact failure rates
for associate degree programs at public
institutions, where the share of
enrollment in failing programs ranges
from about 2 percent at the lowest
threshold to 23 percent at the highest.
Our measure would result in 8 percent
of enrollment in public failing
programs.
TABLE 10.5—SHARE OF ENROLLMENT IN NON-GE PROGRAMS THAT FAIL, BY WHERE EARNINGS THRESHOLD IS SET
% Failing
DTE + lower
EP
Public:
Associate ..................................................................................................
Bachelor’s .................................................................................................
Master’s ....................................................................................................
Doctoral ....................................................................................................
Professional ..............................................................................................
Private, Nonprofit:
Associate ..................................................................................................
Bachelor’s .................................................................................................
Master’s ....................................................................................................
Doctoral ....................................................................................................
Professional ..............................................................................................
DTE + medium EP
DTE + higher
EP
Total Number
of Enrollees
1.6
1.4
1.2
2.6
7.5
7.8
1.8
1.2
2.6
7.5
23.2
4.2
1.3
2.6
7.5
5,496,800
5,800,700
760,500
145,200
127,500
22.5
3.5
4.2
15.5
34.2
23.2
3.9
4.2
15.5
34.2
25.3
5.2
4.4
15.5
34.2
266,900
2,651,300
796,100
142,900
130,400
Note:– Enrollment counts rounded to the nearest hundred.
TABLE 10.6—SHARE OF NON-GE PROGRAMS THAT FAIL, BY WHERE EARNINGS THRESHOLD IS SET
% Failing
DTE + lower
EP
Public:
Associate ..................................................................................................
Bachelor’s .................................................................................................
Master’s ....................................................................................................
Doctoral ....................................................................................................
Professional ..............................................................................................
Private, Nonprofit:
Associate ..................................................................................................
Bachelor’s .................................................................................................
Master’s ....................................................................................................
Doctoral ....................................................................................................
Professional ..............................................................................................
DTE + medium EP
DTE + higher
EP
Total number
of programs
0.4
1.0
0.3
0.2
3.2
1.7
1.3
0.3
0.2
3.2
3.6
2.9
0.3
0.2
3.2
27,300
24,300
14,600
5,700
600
2.6
0.7
1.7
1.9
16.8
2.8
0.9
1.8
1.9
16.8
3.5
1.3
1.8
1.9
16.8
2,300
29,800
10,400
2,900
500
Note: Program counts rounded to the nearest 100.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
No Reporting and Acknowledgment for
Non-GE Programs
The Department considered proposing
to apply the reporting and
acknowledgment requirements only to
GE programs, and calculating D/E rates
and the earnings premium measure only
for these programs, similar to the 2014
Prior Rule. This approach, however,
would fail to protect students, families,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
and taxpayers from investing in non-GE
programs that deliver low value and
poor debt and earnings outcomes. As
higher education costs and student debt
levels increase, students, families,
institutions, and the public have a
commensurately growing interest in
ensuring their higher education
investments are justified through
positive career, debt, and earnings
PO 00000
Frm 00171
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
outcomes for graduates, regardless of the
sector in which the institution operates
or the credential level of the program.
Furthermore, comprehensive
performance information about all
programs is necessary to guide students
that would otherwise choose failing GE
programs to better options.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70174
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Small Program Rates
While we believe the D/E rates and
earnings premium measure are
reasonable and useful metrics for
assessing debt and earnings outcomes,
we acknowledge that the minimum nsize of 30 completers would exempt
small programs from these Financial
Value Transparency measures. In our
initial proposals during negotiated
rulemaking, the Department considered
calculating small program rates in such
instances. These small program rates
would have been calculated by
combining all of an institution’s small
programs to produce the institution’s
small program D/E rates and earnings
premium measure, which would be
used for informational purposes only. In
the case of GE programs, these small
program rates would not have resulted
in program eligibility consequences.
Several negotiators questioned the
usefulness of the small program rates
because they would not provide
information specific to any particular
program, and because an institution’s
different small programs in various
disciplines could lead to vastly different
debt and earnings outcomes. In
addition, several negotiators expressed
concerns about the use of small program
rates as a supplementary performance
measure under proposed § 668.13(e).
Upon consideration of these points, and
in the interest of simplifying the final
rule, the Department has opted to omit
the small program rates.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Alternative Components of the D/E
Rates Measure
The Department considered
alternative ways of computing the D/E
rates measure, including:
• Lower completer thresholds n-size
• Different ways of computing interest
rates
• Different amortization periods
We concluded that the parameters
used in the D/E rates and earnings
premium calculations were most
consistent with best practices identified
in prior analysis and research.
Discretionary Earnings Rate
The Department considered
simplifying the D/E rates metric by only
including a discretionary earnings rate.
We believe that using only the
discretionary earnings rate would be
insufficient because there may be some
instances in which a borrower’s annual
earnings would be sufficient to pass an
8 percent annual debt-to-earnings
threshold, even if that borrower’s
discretionary earnings are insufficient to
pass a 20 percent discretionary debt-toearnings threshold. Utilizing both
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
annual and discretionary D/E rates
would provide a more complete picture
of a program’s true debt and earnings
outcomes and would be more generous
to institutions because a program that
passes either the annual earnings rate or
the discretionary earnings rate would
pass the D/E rates metric.
regulatory action will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. We therefore
present this Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis.
Pre- and Post- Earnings Comparison
A standard practice for evaluating the
effectiveness of postsecondary programs
is to compare the earnings of students
after program completion to earnings
before program enrollment, to control
for any student-specific factors that
determine labor market success that
should not be attributed to program
performance. While the Department
introduced limited analysis of preprogram earnings from students’ FAFSA
data into the evidence above, it is not
feasible to perform such comparisons on
a wide and ongoing scale in the
regulation. Pre-program earnings data is
only available for students who have
labor market experience prior to
postsecondary enrollment, which
excludes many students who proceed
directly to postsecondary education
from high school. Furthermore, earnings
data from part-time work during high
school is mostly uninformative for
earnings potential after postsecondary
education. Although some
postsecondary programs enroll many
students with informative pre-program
earnings, many postsecondary programs
would lack sufficient numbers of such
students to reliably incorporate preprogram earnings from the FAFSA into
the regulation.
The Secretary is establishing new
regulations to address concerns about
the rising cost of postsecondary
education and training and increased
student borrowing by establishing a
final financial value transparency
framework to encourage eligible
postsecondary programs to produce
acceptable debt and earnings outcomes,
apprise current and prospective
students of those outcomes, and provide
better information about program price.
In these final regulations, the Secretary
also adopts a GE program accountability
framework that establishes eligibility
and certification requirements tied to
the debt-to-earnings and median
earnings (relative to high school
graduates) of program graduates. The GE
program accountability framework will
address ongoing concerns about
educational programs that are required
by statute to provide training that
prepares students for gainful
employment in a recognized
occupation, but instead are leaving
students with unaffordable levels of
loan debt in relation to their earnings or
earnings lower than that of a typical
high school graduate. These programs
often lead to default or provide no
earnings benefit beyond that provided
by a high school education, failing to
fulfill their intended goal of preparing
students for gainful employment.
The regulations will provide a needed
framework for oversight around title IV,
HEA institutional eligibility for GE
programs and increased transparency
for all programs. The regulations will
also clarify how the Department will
determine whether a program is of
reasonable length. The effect on small
entities will vary by the extent that they
currently participate in such programs
or that they choose to do so going
forward. Small entities could be
vulnerable to program closure of poorly
performing programs.
11. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This section considers the effects that
the final regulations may have on small
entities in the Educational Sector as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. et seq., Public Law
96–354) as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). The
purpose of the RFA is to establish as a
principle of regulation that agencies
should tailor regulatory and
informational requirements to the size
of entities, consistent with the
objectives of a particular regulation and
applicable statutes. The RFA generally
requires an agency to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule
subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a ‘‘significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.’’ As we describe below, the
Department anticipates that this
PO 00000
Frm 00172
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Description of the Reasons for Agency
Action
Succinct Statement of the Objectives of,
and Legal Basis for, the Regulations
These final regulations amend the
Student Assistance General Provisions
regulations issued under the HEA in 34
CFR part 668. The changes to part 668
are authorized by 20 U.S.C. 1001–1003,
1070a, 1070g, 1085, 1087b, 1087d,
1087e, 1088, 1091, 1092, 1094, 1099c,
1099c–1, 1221e–3, and 3474.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
The regulations are also designed to
protect students and taxpayers from
unreasonable risks. Inadequate
consumer information could result in
students enrolling in programs that will
not help them benefit them financially.
In addition, institutions may use
taxpayer funds in ways that were not
what Congress or the Department
intended, resulting in greater risk to the
taxpayers of waste, fraud, and abuse and
to the institution of undeserved negative
program review or audit findings that
could result in liabilities. These
regulations attempt to limit risks to
students and taxpayers resulting by
enhancing our oversight of GE programs
and providing additional transparency
for all programs.
Description of and, Where Feasible, An
Estimate of the Number of Small
Entities to Which the Regulations Will
Apply
The Small Business Administration
(SBA) defines ‘‘small institution’’ using
data on revenue, market dominance, tax
filing status, governing body, and
population. The majority of entities to
which the Office of Postsecondary
Education’s (OPE) regulations apply are
postsecondary institutions, however,
which do not report such data to the
Department. As a result, for purposes of
these final regulations, the Department
continues to define ‘‘small entities’’ by
reference to enrollment, to allow
meaningful comparison of regulatory
impact across all types of higher
education institutions. The enrollment
standard for small less-than-two-year
institutions (below associate degrees) is
less than 750 full-time-equivalent (FTE)
students and for small institutions of at
least two but less-than-4-years and 4year institutions, less than 1,000 FTE
students.334 As a result of discussions
with the Small Business
Administration, this is an update from
the standard used in some prior rules,
such as the NPRM associated with this
final rule, ‘‘Financial Value
Transparency and Gainful Employment
(GE), Financial Responsibility,
Administrative Capability, Certification
Procedures, Ability to Benefit (ATB),’’
published in the Federal Register May
70175
19, 2023,335 the final rule published in
the Federal Register on July 10, 2023,
for the improving income driven
repayment rule,336 and the final rule
published in the Federal Register on
October 28, 2022, ‘‘Pell Grants for
Prison Education Programs;
Determining the Amount of Federal
Education Assistance Funds Received
by Institutions of Higher Education (90/
10); Change in Ownership and Change
in Control.’’ 337 Those prior rules
applied an enrollment standard for a
small two-year institution of less than
500 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students
and for a small 4-year institution, less
than 1,000 FTE students.338 The
Department consulted with the Office of
Advocacy for the SBA and the Office of
Advocacy has approved the revised
alternative standard for this rulemaking.
The Department continues to believe
this approach most accurately reflects a
common basis for determining size
categories that is linked to the provision
of educational services and that it
captures a similar universe of small
entities as the SBA’s revenue standard.
TABLE 11.1—SMALL INSTITUTIONS UNDER ENROLLMENT-BASED DEFINITION
Small
Total
Percent
Proprietary ...................................................................................................................................
2-year ....................................................................................................................................
4-year ....................................................................................................................................
Private not-for-profit .....................................................................................................................
2-year ....................................................................................................................................
4-year ....................................................................................................................................
Public ...........................................................................................................................................
2-year ....................................................................................................................................
4-year ....................................................................................................................................
2,114
1,875
239
997
199
798
524
461
63
2,331
1,990
341
1,831
203
1,628
1,924
1,145
779
91
94
70
54
98
49
27
40
8
Total ...............................................................................................................................
3,635
6,086
60
Source: 2020–21 IPEDS data reported to the Department.
Table 11.1 summarizes the number of
institutions potentially affected by these
final regulations. As seen in Table 11.2,
the average total revenue at small
institutions ranges from $3.0 million for
proprietary institutions to $16.5 million
at private institutions.
TABLE 11.2—TOTAL REVENUES AT SMALL INSTITUTIONS
Average
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Proprietary ...................................................................................................................................................
2-year ....................................................................................................................................................
4-year ....................................................................................................................................................
Private not-for-profit .....................................................................................................................................
2-year ....................................................................................................................................................
334 In regulations prior to 2016, the Department
categorized small businesses based on tax status.
Those regulations defined ‘‘nonprofit
organizations’’ as ‘‘small organizations’’ if they were
independently owned and operated and not
dominant in their field of operation, or as ‘‘small
entities’’ if they were institutions controlled by
governmental entities with populations below
50,000. Those definitions resulted in the
categorization of all private nonprofit organizations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
as small and no public institutions as small. Under
the previous definition, proprietary institutions
were considered small if they are independently
owned and operated and not dominant in their field
of operation with total annual revenue below
$7,000,000. Using FY 2017 IPEDs finance data for
proprietary institutions, 50 percent of 4-year and 90
percent of 2-year or less proprietary institutions
would be considered small. By contrast, an
enrollment-based definition applies the same metric
PO 00000
Frm 00173
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2,959,809
2,257,046
8,473,115
16,531,376
3,664,051
Total
6,257,035,736
4,231,961,251
2,025,074,485
16,481,781,699
729,146,103
to all types of institutions, allowing consistent
comparison across all types.
335 88 FR 32300 (May 19, 2023).
336 88 FR 43820 (July 10, 2023).
337 87 FR 65426 (Oct. 28, 2022).
338 In those prior rules, at least two but less-thanfour-years institutions were considered in the
broader two-year category. In this iteration, after
consulting with the Office of Advocacy for the SBA,
we separate this group into its own category.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70176
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 11.2—TOTAL REVENUES AT SMALL INSTITUTIONS—Continued
Average
Total
4-year ....................................................................................................................................................
Public ...........................................................................................................................................................
2-year ....................................................................................................................................................
4-year ....................................................................................................................................................
19,740,145
11,084,101
8,329,653
31,239,665
15,752,635,596
5,808,068,785
3,839,969,872
1,968,098,913
Total ...............................................................................................................................................
7,853,339
28,546,886,220
Note: Based on analysis of IPEDS enrollment and revenue data for 2020–21.
These final regulations require
additional reporting and compliance by
title IV, HEA participating
postsecondary institutions, including
small entities, and will have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. As described
in a previous section, institutions are
exempt from the reporting requirements
if none of their groups of substantially
similar programs have more than 30
completers in total during the four most
recently completed award years.
Furthermore, GE programs at small
institutions could be at risk of losing the
ability to distribute title IV, HEA funds
under the GE program accountability
framework if they fail either the debt-toearnings (D/E) rate measure or earnings
premium (EP) measure. Non-GE
programs at small institutions,
excluding undergraduate associate and
bachelor’s degree programs, that fail the
metrics, though the rate of failing to
pass both metrics is higher for programs
at such institutions.339
Table 11.3 and 11.4 show the number
and percentage of non-GE enrollees and
non-GE programs at small institutions in
each status relative to the performance
standard. The share of non-GE programs
that have sufficient data and fail the D/
E metric is higher for programs at small
institutions (1.4 percent) than it is for all
institutions (0.8 percent, Table 4.5).
Failing the D/E metric for non-GE
programs initiates a requirement that
the institution must have title IV, HEA
students acknowledge having seen the
information before an enrollment
agreement can be signed. The share of
title IV, HEA enrollment in such
programs is also higher at small
institutions (8.6 percent for small
institutions vs. 2.1 percent for all
institutions, Table 4.4).
D/E metric would be required to have
students acknowledge having seen this
information prior to entering into
enrollment agreements.
Therefore, many small entities will be
impacted by the reporting and
compliance aspects of the rule, which
we quantify below. As we describe in
more detail below, the Department
estimates that 1.4 percent of non-GE
programs at small institutions would
fail the D/E metric, therefore triggering
the acknowledgment requirement. The
Department also estimates that 12.8
percent of GE programs at small
institutions would fail either the D/E or
EP metric, therefore, being at risk of
losing title IV, HEA eligibility. GE
programs represent 46 percent of
enrollment at small institutions.
The Department’s analysis shows
programs at small institutions are much
more likely to have insufficient sample
size to compute and report D/E and EP
TABLE 11.3—NUMBER OF ENROLLEES IN NON-GE PROGRAMS AT SMALL INSTITUTIONS BY GE RESULT, BY CONTROL, IHE
TYPE, AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL
Result in 2019
No D/E or EP data
N
Public:
Associate ............................................
Bachelor’s ..........................................
Master’s ..............................................
Doctoral ..............................................
Professional .......................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Total ............................................
Private, Nonprofit:
Associate ............................................
Bachelor’s ..........................................
Master’s ..............................................
Doctoral ..............................................
Professional .......................................
%
Pass
N
Fail D/E only
%
N
Fail both D/E and EP
%
N
%
Fail EP only
N
%
89,200
9,700
500
300
2,100
68.8
72.8
32.2
36.3
45.3
28,100
3,000
1,100
600
1,400
21.7
22.1
67.8
63.7
29.8
0
0
0
0
1,200
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.9
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12,300
689
0
0
0
9.5
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
101,900
67.8
34,100
22.7
1,200
0.8
0
0.0
13,000
8.7
28,700
162,500
29,600
7,600
9,000
57.0
74.9
61.1
45.4
25.0
15,800
41,400
14,600
3,600
7,400
31.4
19.1
30.2
21.3
20.5
2,500
4,600
3,100
5,500
19,400
5.0
2.1
6.3
32.9
53.8
2,100
5,100
1,100
100
0
4.1
2.4
2.3
0.4
0.0
1,300
3,400
54
0
200
2.5
1.5
0.1
0.0
0.7
Total ............................................
Total:
Associate ............................................
Bachelor’s ..........................................
Master’s ..............................................
Doctoral ..............................................
Professional .......................................
237,400
64.4
82,700
22.5
35,100
9.5
8,300
2.3
4,900
1.3
117,900
172,300
30,100
8,000
11,100
65.5
74.8
60.2
45.0
27.3
43,900
44,300
15,700
4,200
8,800
24.4
19.2
31.4
23.5
21.6
2,500
4,600
3,100
5,500
20,500
1.4
2.0
6.1
31.2
50.5
2,100
5,100
1,100
100
0
1.2
2.2
2.2
0.4
0.0
13,600
4,000
100
0
200
7.6
1.8
0.1
0.0
0.6
Total ............................................
339,300
65.4
116,900
22.5
36,300
7.0
8,300
1.6
18,000
3.5
Note: Enrollment counts in this table have been rounded to the nearest 100.
339 The minimum number of program completers
in a 2-year cohort that is required for the
Department to compute the D/E and EP
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
performance metrics is referred to as the ‘‘n-size.’’
An n-size of 30 is used in the final rule; GE and
non-GE programs with fewer than 30 completers
PO 00000
Frm 00174
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
across 2 years would not have performance metrics
computed.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70177
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 11.4—NUMBER OF NON-GE PROGRAMS AT SMALL INSTITUTIONS BY GE RESULT, BY CONTROL, IHE TYPE, AND
CREDENTIAL LEVEL
Result in 2019
No D/E or EP data
N
Public:
Associate ............................................
Bachelor’s ..........................................
Master’s ..............................................
Doctoral ..............................................
Professional .......................................
Total ............................................
Private, Nonprofit:
Associate ............................................
Bachelor’s ..........................................
Master’s ..............................................
Doctoral ..............................................
Professional .......................................
Pass
%
N
Fail D/E only
%
N
Fail both D/E and EP
%
N
Fail EP only
%
N
%
2,180
195
30
17
9
94.6
95.1
81.1
89.5
60.0
96
9
7
2
4
4.2
4.4
18.9
10.5
26.7
0
0
0
0
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.3
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28
1
0
0
0
1.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
2,431
94.2
118
4.6
2
0.1
0
0.0
29
1.1
759
4,204
924
198
86
90.8
94.8
87.9
88.4
67.2
62
176
95
11
12
7.4
4.0
9.0
4.9
9.4
3
19
24
14
27
0.4
0.4
2.3
6.2
21.1
7
19
6
1
0
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.0
5
15
2
0
3
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.0
2.3
Total ............................................
Total:
Associate ............................................
Bachelor’s ..........................................
Master’s ..............................................
Doctoral ..............................................
Professional .......................................
6,171
92.5
356
5.3
87
1.3
33
0.5
25
0.4
2,939
4,399
954
215
95
93.6
94.8
87.7
88.5
66.4
158
185
102
13
16
5.0
4.0
9.4
5.3
11.2
3
19
24
14
29
0.1
0.4
2.2
5.8
20.3
7
19
6
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.0
33
16
2
0
3
1.1
0.3
0.2
0.0
2.1
Total ............................................
8,602
93.0
474
5.1
89
1.0
33
0.4
54
0.6
Tables 11.5 and 11.6 report similar
tabulations for GE programs at small
institutions. GE programs include nondegree certificate programs at all
institutions and all degree programs at
proprietary institutions. GE programs at
small institutions are more likely to
have a failing D/E or EP metrics (12.8
percent of all GE programs at small
institutions, compared to 5.4 percent for
all institutions in Table 4.9) and have a
greater share of enrollment in such
programs (40.5 percent vs. 23.8 percent
for all institutions in Table 4.8). GE
programs that fail the same performance
metric in two out of three consecutive
years will become ineligible to
administer Federal title IV, HEA student
aid.
TABLE 11.5—NUMBER OF ENROLLEES IN GE PROGRAMS AT SMALL INSTITUTIONS BY GE RESULT, BY CONTROL, IHE
TYPE, AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL
Result in 2019
No D/E or EP data
N
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Public:
UG Certificates ..
Post-BA Certs ...
Grad Certs ........
%
Pass
N
Fail D/E only
%
N
Fail both D/E and EP
%
N
%
Fail EP only
N
%
53,800
<50
100
74.7
100.0
77.4
15,600
0
<50
21.6
0.0
22.6
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2,700
0
0
3.7
0.0
0.0
Total ...........
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates ..
Post-BA Certs ...
Grad Certs ........
54,000
74.7
15,600
21.6
0
0.0
0
0.0
2,700
3.7
9,400
1,400
1,700
41.7
100.0
83.7
6,600
0
0
29.3
0.0
0.0
0
0
300
0.0
0.0
16.3
400
0
0
1.7
0.0
0.0
6,200
0
0
27.3
0.0
0.0
Total ...........
Proprietary:
UG Certificates ..
Associate ...........
Bachelor’s .........
Post-BA Certs ...
Master’s .............
Doctoral .............
Professional ......
Grad Certs ........
12,500
48.1
6,600
25.4
300
1.3
400
1.5
6,200
23.7
55,600
22,400
8,800
<50
3,200
1,700
1,000
300
21.8
38.7
65.1
55.8
80.4
75.4
37.7
77.8
52,900
19,700
3,400
<50
200
300
100
0
20.7
34.0
25.1
44.2
3.9
11.3
3.7
0.0
100
7,200
1,100
0
100
300
1,600
0
0.0
12.5
8.1
0.0
2.0
13.3
58.6
0.0
29,800
5,400
200
0
500
0
0
0
11.7
9.4
1.7
0.0
13.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
116,500
3,100
0
0
0
0
0
73
45.7
5.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.2
93,000
27.7
76,500
22.8
10,400
3.1
36,000
10.7
119,700
35.7
118,800
22,400
8,800
34.0
38.7
65.1
75,100
19,700
3,400
21.5
34.0
25.1
100
7,200
1,100
0.0
12.5
8.1
30,200
5,400
200
8.6
9.4
1.7
125,300
3,100
0
35.8
5.4
0.0
Total ...........
Total:
UG Certificates ..
Associate ...........
Bachelor’s .........
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00175
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70178
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 11.5—NUMBER OF ENROLLEES IN GE PROGRAMS AT SMALL INSTITUTIONS BY GE RESULT, BY CONTROL, IHE
TYPE, AND CREDENTIAL LEVEL—Continued
Result in 2019
No D/E or EP data
N
Pass
%
N
Fail D/E only
%
N
Fail both D/E and EP
%
N
%
Fail EP only
N
%
Post-BA Certs ...
Master’s .............
Doctoral .............
Professional ......
1,400
3,200
1,700
1,000
97.4
80.4
75.4
37.7
<50
200
300
100
2.6
3.9
11.3
3.7
0
100
300
1,600
0.0
2.0
13.3
58.6
0
500
0
0
0.0
13.6
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Grad Certs ........
Total ...........
2,100
159,500
82.6
36.8
<50
98,800
1.4
22.8
300
10,700
13.1
2.5
0
36,400
0.0
8.4
73
128,500
2.9
29.6
Note: Enrollment counts in this table have been rounded to the nearest 100.
TABLE 11.6—NUMBER OF GE PROGRAMS AT SMALL INSTITUTIONS BY GE RESULT, BY CONTROL, IHE TYPE, AND
CREDENTIAL LEVEL
Result in 2019
No D/E or EP data
N
Fail D/E only
%
N
Fail both D/E and EP
%
N
%
Fail EP only
N
%
3,194
6
13
93.4
100.0
92.9
174
0
1
5.1
0.0
7.1
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50
0
0
1.5
0.0
0.0
Total ...........
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates ..
Post-BA Certs ...
Grad Certs ........
3,213
93.5
175
5.1
0
0.0
0
0.0
50
1.5
352
138
103
81.5
100.0
99.0
44
0
0
10.2
0.0
0.0
0
0
1
0.0
0.0
1.0
2
0
0
0.5
0.0
0.0
34
0
0
7.9
0.0
0.0
Total ...........
Proprietary:
UG Certificates ..
Associate ...........
Bachelor’s .........
Post-BA Certs ...
Master’s .............
Doctoral .............
Professional ......
Grad Certs ........
593
88.0
44
6.5
1
0.1
2
0.3
34
5.0
1,202
626
199
11
92
33
16
16
53.0
76.4
88.1
91.7
92.9
94.3
80.0
84.2
285
112
16
1
2
1
1
0
12.6
13.7
7.1
8.3
2.0
2.9
5.0
0.0
1
38
9
0
1
1
3
0
0.0
4.6
4.0
0.0
1.0
2.9
15.0
0.0
133
23
2
0
4
0
0
0
5.9
2.8
0.9
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
648
20
0
0
0
0
0
3
28.6
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.8
Public:
UG Certificates ..
Post-BA Certs ...
Grad Certs ........
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Pass
N
%
Total ...........
Total:
UG Certificates ..
Associate ...........
Bachelor’s .........
Post-BA Certs ...
Master’s .............
Doctoral .............
Professional ......
Grad Certs ........
2,195
62.7
418
11.9
53
1.5
162
4.6
671
19.2
4,748
626
199
155
92
33
16
132
77.6
76.4
88.1
99.4
92.9
94.3
80.0
96.4
503
112
16
1
2
1
1
1
8.2
13.7
7.1
0.6
2.0
2.9
5.0
0.7
1
38
9
0
1
1
3
1
0.0
4.6
4.0
0.0
1.0
2.9
15.0
0.7
135
23
2
0
4
0
0
0
2.2
2.8
0.9
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
732
20
0
0
0
0
0
3
12.0
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
Total ...........
6,001
78.8
637
8.4
54
0.7
164
2.2
755
9.9
Description of the Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements of the Regulations,
Including of the Classes of Small
Entities That Will Be Subject to the
Requirement and the Type of
Professional Skills Necessary for
Preparation of the Report or Record
As noted in the Paperwork Reduction
Act section, burden related to the final
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
regulations will be assessed in a
separate information collection process
and that burden is expected to involve
individuals more than institutions of
any size.
The final rule involves four types of
reporting and compliance requirements
for institutions, including small entities.
First, under § 668.43, institutions will
be required to provide additional
PO 00000
Frm 00176
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
programmatic information to the
Department and make this and
additional information assembled by the
Department available to current and
prospective students by providing a link
to a Department-administered program
information website. Second, under
§ 668.407, the Department will require
acknowledgments from current and
prospective students if an eligible non-
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
GE certificate or graduate program leads
to high debt outcomes based on its D/
E rates. Third, under § 668.408,
institutions will be required to provide
new annual reporting about programs,
current students, and students that
complete or withdraw during each
award year. As described in the
Preamble of this final rule, reporting
includes student-level information on
enrollment, cost of attendance, tuition
and fees, allowances for books and
supplies, allowances for housing,
institutional and other grants, and
private loans disbursed. Finally, under
§ 668.605, institutions with GE
programs that fail at least one of the
metrics will be required to provide
warnings to current and prospective
students about the risk of losing title IV,
70179
HEA eligibility and would require that
students must acknowledge having seen
the warning before the institution may
disburse any title IV, HEA funds.
Initial estimates of the reporting and
compliance burden for these four items
for small entities are provided in Table
11.7, though these are subject to
revision as the content of the required
reporting is refined.340
TABLE 11.7—INITIAL AND SUBSEQUENT REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE BURDEN FOR SMALL ENTITIES
§ 668.43 ...........
§ 668.407 .........
§ 668.408 .........
§ 668.605 .........
Amend § 668.43 to establish a website for the posting and distribution of key information pertaining to the institution’s educational programs, and to require institutions to provide information about how to access that website to
a prospective student before the student enrolls, registers, or makes a financial commitment to the institution.
Add a new § 668.407 to require current and prospective students to acknowledge having seen the information on
the program information website maintained by the Secretary if an eligible program has failed the D/E rates
measure, to specify the content and delivery of such acknowledgments, and to require that students must provide
the acknowledgment before the institution may enter into an enrollment agreement with the student.
Add a new § 668.408 to establish institutional reporting requirements for students who enroll in, complete, or withdraw from a GE program or eligible non-GE program and to establish the reporting timeframe.
Add a new § 668.605 to require warnings to current and prospective students if a GE program is at risk of losing
title IV, HEA eligibility, to specify the content and delivery parameters of such notifications, and to require that students must acknowledge having seen the warning before the institution may disburse any title IV, HEA funds.
As described in this preamble, much
of the necessary information for GE
programs would already have been
reported to the Department under the
2014 Prior Rule, and as such we believe
the added burden of this reporting
relative to existing requirements would
be reasonable. Furthermore, 88 percent
of public and 47 percent of private
nonprofit institutions operated at least
one GE program and, therefore, have
experience with similar data reporting
for the subset of their students enrolled
in certificate programs under the 2014
Prior Rule. Moreover, many institutions
report more detailed information on the
components of cost of attendance and
other sources of financial aid in the
Federal National Postsecondary Student
Aid Survey (NPSAS) administered by
the National Center for Education
Statistics. Finally, the Department
proposes flexibility for institutions to
avoid reporting data on students who
completed programs in the past for the
first year of implementation, and
instead to use data on more recent
completer cohorts to estimate median
debt levels. In part, we intend to ease
the administrative burden of providing
this data for programs that were not
covered by the 2014 Prior Rule reporting
requirements, especially for the small
number of institutions that may not
previously have had any programs
subject to these requirements.
The Department recognizes that
institutions may have different
processes for record-keeping and
administering financial aid, so the
burden of the GE and financial
transparency reporting could vary by
institution. As noted previously, a high
percentage of institutions have already
reported data related to the 2014 Prior
Rule or similar variables for other
purposes. Many institutions can query
systems or adapt existing reports to
meet these requirements. On the other
hand, some institutions may still have
data entry processes that are very
manual, and generating the information
for their programs could involve many
more hours and resources. Small
$6,512,697.
$22,459.
$32,636,989 initial year;
$12,502,598 subsequent
years.
$21,227.
entities may be less likely to have
invested in systems and processes that
allow easy data reporting because it is
not needed for their operations.
Institutions may fall in between these
poles and be able to automate the
reporting of some variables but need
more effort for others.
We believe that, while the reporting
relates to program or student-level
information, the reporting process is
likely to be handled at the institutional
level. There would be a cost to establish
the query or report and validate it
upfront, but then the marginal increase
in costs to process additional programs
or students should not be too
significant. The reporting process will
involve personnel with different skills
and responsibility levels. We estimated
this using Bureau of Labor statistics
median hourly wage rates for
postsecondary administrators of
$48.05.341 Table 11.8 presents the
Department’s estimates of the hours
associated with the reporting
requirements.
TABLE 11.8—ESTIMATED HOURS FOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Process
Hours
Review systems and existing reports for adaptability for this reporting .........................................................
Develop reporting query/result template:
Program-level reporting ............................................................................................................................
Student-level reporting .............................................................................................................................
Run test reports:
Program-level reporting ............................................................................................................................
Student-level reporting .............................................................................................................................
340 For §§ 668.43, 668.407, and 668.605, we
obtained these estimates by proportioning the total
PRA burden on institutions by the share of
institutions that are small entities, as reported in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Table 10.1 (60 percent). The estimate for § 668.605
is reduced from the NPRM estimate that included
burden on individuals in the calculation. The
PO 00000
Frm 00177
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Hours basis
10
Per institution.
15
30
Per institution.
Per institution.
0.25
0.5
Per institution.
Per institution.
estimate for the final includes the burden on
institutions only.
341 Available at www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oes119033.htm.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70180
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 11.8—ESTIMATED HOURS FOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Process
Hours
Review/validate test report results:
Program-level reporting ............................................................................................................................
Student-level reporting .............................................................................................................................
Run reports:
Program-level reporting ............................................................................................................................
Student-level reporting .............................................................................................................................
Review/validate report results:
Program-level reporting ............................................................................................................................
Student-level reporting .............................................................................................................................
Certify and submit reporting ............................................................................................................................
The ability to set up reports or
processes that can be rerun in future
years, along with the fact that the first
reporting cycle includes information
from several prior years, should
significantly decrease the expected
burden after the first reporting cycle. We
estimate that the hours associated with
reviewing systems, developing or
updating queries, and reviewing and
validating the test queries or reports will
be reduced by 35 percent after the first
year. The institution would need to run
and validate queries or reports to make
sure no system changes have affected
them and confirm there are no program
changes in CIP code, credential level,
preparation for licensure, accreditation,
Hours basis
10
20
0.25
0.5
2
5
10
Per institution.
Per institution.
Per program.
Per program.
Per program.
Per program.
Per institution.
or other items, but we expect that would
be less burdensome than initially
establishing the reporting. Table 11.9
presents estimates of reporting burden
for small entities for the initial year and
subsequent years under § 668.408 on an
overall and a per institution average
basis.
TABLE 11.9.1—ESTIMATED REPORTING BURDEN FOR SMALL ENTITIES FOR THE INITIAL REPORTING CYCLE
Institution
count
Control and level
Program count
Hours
Amount
Private 2-year ..................................................................................................
Proprietary 2-year ............................................................................................
Public 2-year ....................................................................................................
Private 4-year ..................................................................................................
Proprietary 4-year ............................................................................................
Public 4-year ....................................................................................................
112
1,077
355
470
96
39
323
2,459
4,871
6,156
800
664
20,737
179,352
184,992
235,839
33,992
24,318
996,413
8,617,852
8,888,878
11,332,040
1,633,316
1,168,492
Total ..........................................................................................................
2,149
15,273
679,230
32,636,989
TABLE 11.9.2—ESTIMATED REPORTING BURDEN FOR SMALL ENTITIES FOR THE INITIAL REPORTING CYCLE
Institution
count
Control and level
Program count
Hours
Amount
Private 2-year ..................................................................................................
Proprietary 2-year ............................................................................................
Public 2-year ....................................................................................................
Private 4-year ..................................................................................................
Proprietary 4-year ............................................................................................
Public 4-year ....................................................................................................
112
1,077
355
470
96
39
323
2,459
4,871
6,156
800
664
9,895
90,139
61,180
78,729
12,536
7,720
475,467
4,331,191
2,939,711
3,782,928
602,355
370,946
Total ..........................................................................................................
2,149
15,273
260,200
12,502,598
TABLE 11.9.3—ESTIMATED AVERAGE REPORTING BURDEN PER INSTITUTION FOR SMALL ENTITIES FOR THE INITIAL
REPORTING CYCLE
Institution
count
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Control and level
Program count
Initial average
hours per
institution
Initial average
amount per
institution
As % of
average
revenues
Private 2-year .......................................................................
Proprietary 2-year ................................................................
Public 2-year ........................................................................
Private 4-year .......................................................................
Proprietary 4-year ................................................................
Public 4-year ........................................................................
112
1,077
355
470
96
39
323
2,459
4,871
6,156
800
664
185
167
521
502
354
624
8,897
8,002
25,039
24,111
17,014
29,961
0.24
0.35
0.30
0.12
0.20
0.09
Total ..............................................................................
2,149
15,273
316
15,187
0.19
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00178
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
70181
TABLE 11.9.4—ESTIMATED AVERAGE REPORTING BURDEN PER INSTITUTION FOR SMALL ENTITIES FOR SUBSEQUENT
REPORTING CYCLES
Institution
count
Control and level
Average hours
per institution
Average
amount per
institution
As % of
average
revenues
Private 2-year .......................................................................
Proprietary 2-year ................................................................
Public 2-year ........................................................................
Private 4-year .......................................................................
Proprietary 4-year ................................................................
Public 4-year ........................................................................
112
1,077
355
470
96
39
323
2,459
4,871
6,156
800
664
88
84
172
168
131
198
4,245
4,022
8,281
8,049
6,275
9,511
0.11
0.18
0.10
0.04
0.28
0.03
Total ..............................................................................
2,149
15,273
121
5,818
0.07
Identification, to the Extent Practicable,
of All Relevant Federal Regulations
That May Duplicate, Overlap, or
Conflict With the Regulations
The regulations are unlikely to
conflict with or duplicate existing
Federal regulations.
Alternatives Considered
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Program count
As described in section 10 of the
Regulatory Impact Analysis above,
‘‘Alternatives Considered’’, we
evaluated several alternative provisions
and approaches including using D/E
rates only, alternative earnings
thresholds, no reporting or
acknowledgment requirements for nonGE programs, and several alternative
ways of computing the performance
metrics (smaller n-sizes and different
interest rates or amortization periods).
Most relevant to small entities was the
alternative of using a lower n-size,
which would result in larger effects on
programs at small entities, both in terms
of risk for loss of eligibility for GE
programs and greater burden for
providing warnings and/or
acknowledgment. The alternative of not
requiring reporting or acknowledgments
in the case of failing metrics for non-GE
programs would result in lower
reporting burden for small institutions
but was deemed to be insufficient to
achieve the goal of creating greater
transparency around program
performance. However, for the final
regulations the Department did remove
the reporting obligation for programs
that have fewer than thirty completers
in the previous four award years, which
does reduce the burden for institutions
with very small programs.
The Department sought to limit the
number of hours for occupationally
related educational programs to the
amount that States require to obtain
licensure, where applicable. We believe
that this change would particularly
benefit students by keeping tuition
costs, as well as related noninstitutional expenses, lower.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
12. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department provides the
general public and Federal agencies
with an opportunity to comment on
proposed and continuing collections of
information in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA).342 This helps so that the public
understands the Department’s collection
instructions, respondents can provide
the requested data in the desired format,
reporting burden (time and financial
resources) is minimized, collection
instruments are clearly understood, and
the Department can properly assess the
impact of collection requirements on
respondents. Sections 600.21, 668.43,
668.407, 668.408, and 668.605 of this
final rule contain information collection
requirements.
Under the PRA, the Department has or
will at the required time submit a copy
of these sections and an Information
Collections Request to OMB for its
review.
A Federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor a collection of information
unless OMB approves the collection
under the PRA and the corresponding
information collection instrument
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no person is required
to comply with, or is subject to penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection
of information if the collection
instrument does not display a currently
valid OMB control number.
PRA Comments
Comments: One commenter suggested
that, in calculating administrative
burden, the Department should consider
the administrative burden of all the
proposed rules together, not
individually.
Discussion: The Department took
great care to analyze the impact of the
342 44
PO 00000
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
Frm 00179
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
proposed regulations. The Department
has separated the GE and Financial
Value Transparency Framework topics
from the other rules covered in the
NPRM. We, therefore, updated the RIA
to reflect that, as well as to reflect
changes we made from the proposed
rules to these final rules.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
claimed the regulations will increase the
cost of higher education because
institutions will pass on the increased
costs of reporting and data requirements
to students, decreasing returns for
students and potentially negatively
impacting program DTE and EP
outcomes.
Discussion: The Department is
concerned that programs with poor
outcomes continue to receive title IV,
HEA funding subsidized by taxpayers.
We acknowledged increases in costs to
institutions in the NPRM and this final
rule; however, we believe they will
ultimately bring down the cost of
postsecondary education by providing
prospective students with the necessary
resources to make an informed decision
about their education. Students deserve
to know whether their program will
leave the in the same place or worse off
if they never had attended in the first
place.
We believe these rules will also
protect taxpayer dollars by eliminating
poor performing programs prior to the
need for reactive actions like closed
school discharges or borrower defense
to repayment discharges. Further the
public deserves access to more
information and more data regarding the
postsecondary institutions and
programs that they are supporting
through their tax dollars.
Changes: None.
Updating Application Information
§ 600.21.
Requirements: The change to
§ 600.21(a)(11)(v) and (vi), would
require an institution with GE programs
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70182
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
to update any changes in certification of
those program(s).
Burden Calculations: The regulatory
change would require an update to the
current institutional application form,
1845–0012. The form update would be
made available for comment through a
full public clearance package before
being made available for use by the
effective dates of the regulations. The
burden changes would be assessed to
OMB Control Number 1845–0012,
Application for Approval to Participate
in Federal Student Aid Programs.
Institutional and Programmatic
Information § 668.43
Requirements: Under final
§ 668.43(d), the Department will
establish and maintain a website for
posting and distributing key information
pertaining to the institution’s
educational programs. An institution
will provide such information as the
Department prescribes through a notice
published in the Federal Register for
prospective and enrolled students
through the website.
This information could include, but
will not be limited to, as reasonably
available, the primary occupations that
the program prepares students to enter,
along with links to occupational profiles
on O*NET or its successor site; the
program’s or institution’s completion
rates and withdrawal rates for full-time
and less-than-full-time students, as
reported to or calculated by the
Department; the length of the program
in calendar time; the total number of
individuals enrolled in the program
during the most recently completed
award year; the total cost of tuition and
fees, and the total cost of books,
supplies, and equipment, that a student
would incur for completing the program
within the length of the program; the
percentage of the individuals enrolled
in the program during the most recently
completed award year who received a
title IV, HEA loan, a private education
loan, or both; and whether the program
is programmatically accredited and the
name of the accrediting agency.
The institution will be required to
provide a prominent link and any other
needed information to access the
website on any web page containing
academic, cost, financial aid, or
admissions information about the
program or institution. The Department
could require the institution to modify
a web page if the information about how
to access the Department’s website is
not sufficiently prominent, readily
accessible, clear, conspicuous, or direct.
In addition, the Department will
require the institution to provide the
relevant information to access the
website to any prospective student or
third party acting on behalf of the
prospective student before the
prospective student signs an enrollment
agreement, completes registration, or
makes a financial commitment to the
institution.
Burden Calculations: The final
regulatory language in § 668.43(d) will
add burden to all institutions, domestic
and foreign. The changes in § 668.43(d)
will require institutions to supply the
Department with specific information
about programs it is offering as well as
provide to enrolled and prospective
students this information.
We believe that this reporting activity
will require an estimated 50 hours per
institution. We estimate that it will take
private nonprofit institutions 70,500
hours (1,410 × 50 = 70,500) to complete
the required reporting activity. We
estimate that it will take proprietary
institutions 68,600 hours (1,372 × 50 =
68,600) to complete the required
reporting activity. We estimate that it
will take public institutions 86,800
hours (1,736 × 50 = 86,800) to complete
the required reporting activity.
The total estimated increase in burden
to OMB Control Number 1845–0022 for
§ 668.43 is 225,900 hours with a total
rounded estimated cost of $10,854,495.
STUDENT ASSISTANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS—OMB CONTROL NUMBER 1845–0022
Affected entity
Respondent
Burden hours
Cost
$48.05 per
institution
Private nonprofit .......................................................................
Proprietary ...............................................................................
Public .......................................................................................
1,410
1,372
1,736
1,410
1,372
1,736
70,500
68,600
86,800
3,387,525.00
3,296,230.00
4,170,740.00
Total ..................................................................................
4,518
4,518
225,900
10,854,495.00
Student Acknowledgments § 668.407
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Responses
Requirements: The final rule provides
in § 668.407(a) that a student will be
required to provide an acknowledgment
of the D/E rate information for any year
for which the Secretary notifies an
institution that the program has failing
D/E rates for the year in which the D/
E rates were most recently calculated by
the Department. This final rule excludes
undergraduate degree programs from the
acknowledgment requirements at
§ 668.407(a).
Burden Calculations: The final
regulatory language in § 668.407 will
add burden to institutions. The changes
in § 668.407 will require institutions to
develop and provide notices to
prospective students that they are
required to review information on the
Secretary’s website and complete
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
acknowledge that they have viewed this
information if the program to which
they are applying has unacceptable D/E
rates. The institution would also be
obligated to check whether an
individual has completed the
acknowledgment before entering into an
agreement to enroll the student.
However, to reduce burden for
institutions and students, such an
acknowledgment will only be required
when a student will attend a program
that does not lead to an undergraduate
degree and leads to high debt burden, or
when a student will attend a GE
program at risk of losing title IV, HEA
eligibility.
In the burden calculation for
§ 668.407 here, we account for burden
for non-GE programs. We account for all
burden related to GE programs,
PO 00000
Frm 00180
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
including where such burden comes
from provisions that apply to all
programs, as in 668.407, under our
discussion of 668.605. We believe that
most institutions will develop the notice
directing impacted students to the
Department’s program information
website and make it available
electronically to current and prospective
students. We believe that this action
will require an estimated 1 hour per
affected program. We estimate that it
would take private institutions 670
hours (670 programs × 1 hour = 670) to
develop and deliver the required notice
based on the information provided by
the Department. We estimate that it will
take public institutions 109 hours (109
programs × 1 hour = 109) to develop and
deliver the required notice based on the
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
information provided by the
Department.
The changes in § 668.407(a) will
require institutions to direct prospective
and students enrolled in programs that
failed the D/E rates for the year in which
the D/E rates were most recently
calculated by the Department to the
Department’s program information
website. We estimate that it will take the
88,000 students 10 minutes to read the
notice and go to the program
information website to acknowledge
receiving the information for a total of
70183
hours (88,000 students × .17 hours =
14,960).
The total estimated increase in burden
to OMB Control Number 1845–0174 for
§ 668.407 is 15,739 hours with a total
rounded estimated cost of $370,441.
STUDENT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS—OMB CONTROL NUMBER 1845–0174
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Affected entity
Respondent
Responses
Burden hours
Cost
$48.05 per
institution
$22.26 per
individual
Individual ..................................................................................
Private nonprofit .......................................................................
Public .......................................................................................
88,000
134
11
88,000
670
109
14,960
670
109
$333,010
32,194
5,237
Total ..................................................................................
88,145
88,779
15,739
370,441
Reporting Requirements § 668.408
Requirements: The final rule in
subpart Q, Financial Value
Transparency, adds new § 668.408 to
establish institutional reporting
requirements for students who enroll in,
complete, or withdraw from a GE
program or eligible non-GE program and
to define the timeframe for institutions
to report this information.
Based on projected data provided
earlier in the RIA, the Department
anticipates that approximately 4,518
institutions will be required to provide
the data specified in § 668.408. We
anticipate there will be initial estimated
reporting year’s burden of 5,078,259
hours total for all institutions. This
estimate incorporates establishing
required data routines, testing of reports
and returned data, and ultimately
submission of the data to the
Department. It is anticipated that once
these data routines and reporting
mechanism are established, subsequent
year estimated reporting will decrease to
1,459,603 hours total for all institutions.
Burden Calculations: The regulatory
change will require an update to a
Federal Student Aid data system. Once
the systems for receiving and sharing
the data are established, the reporting
update will be made available for
comment through a full information
collection package with public comment
periods before being made available for
use on or after the effective dates of the
regulations. The burden changes will be
assessed to the OMB Control Number
assigned to the system.
Student Warnings and
Acknowledgments § 668.605
Requirements: The final rule adds a
new § 668.605 to require warnings to
current and prospective students if a GE
program is at risk of losing title IV, HEA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
eligibility, to specify the content and
delivery parameters of such
notifications, and to require that
students must acknowledge having seen
the warning before the institution may
enter an enrollment agreement,
complete registration, or disburse any
title IV, HEA funds.
In addition, warnings provided to
students enrolled in GE programs will
include a description of the academic
and financial options available to
continue their education in another
program at the institution in the event
that the program loses eligibility,
including whether the students could
transfer academic credit earned in the
program to another program at the
institution and which course credit
would transfer; an indication of
whether, in the event of a loss of
eligibility, the institution would
continue to provide instruction in the
program to allow students to complete
the program, and refund the tuition,
fees, and other required charges paid to
the institution for enrollment in the
program; and an explanation of
whether, in the event that the program
loses eligibility, the students could
transfer credits earned in the program to
another institution through an
established articulation agreement or
teach-out.
The institution will be required to
provide alternatives to an Englishlanguage warning for current and
prospective students with limited
English proficiency.
Burden Calculations: The final
regulatory language in § 668.605 will
add burden to institutions. The changes
in § 668.605 will require institutions to
provide warning notices to enrolled and
prospective students that a GE program
has unacceptable D/E rates or an
unacceptable earnings premium
PO 00000
Frm 00181
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
measure for the year in which the D/E
rates or earnings premium measure were
most recently calculated by the
Department along with warnings about
the potential loss of title IV, HEA
eligibility.
We account for all burden related to
GE programs, including where such
burden comes from provisions that
apply to all programs, as in § 668.407,
under our discussion of § 668.605. We
believe that most institutions will
develop the warning and make it
available electronically to current and
prospective students. We believe that
this action will require an estimated 1
hour per affected program. We estimate
that it will take private institutions 9
hours (9 programs × 1 hour = 9) to
develop and deliver the required
warning based on the information
provided by the Department. We
estimate that it will take proprietary
institutions 71 hours (71 programs × 1
hour = 71) to develop and deliver the
required warning based on the
information provided by the
Department. We estimate that it will
take public institutions 2 hours (2
programs × 1 hour = 2) to develop and
deliver the required warning based on
the information provided by the
Department.
The changes in § 668.605(d) will
require institutions to provide
alternatives to the English-language
warning notices to enrolled and
prospective students with limited
English proficiency.
We estimate that it will take private
institutions 72 hours (9 programs × 8
hours = 72) to develop and deliver the
required alternate language the required
warning based on the information
provided by the Department. We
estimate that it will take proprietary
institutions 568 hours (71 programs × 8
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70184
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
hours = 568) to develop and deliver the
required alternate language the required
warning based on the information
provided by the Department. We
estimate that it will take public
institutions 16 hours (2 programs × 8
hours = 16) to develop and deliver the
required warning based on the
information provided by the
Department.
The final changes in § 668.605(e) will
require institutions to provide the
warning notices to students enrolled in
the GE programs with failing metrics.
We estimate that it will take the 60,700
students 10 minutes to read the warning
and go to the program information
website to acknowledge receiving the
information for a total of 10,319 hours
(60,700 students × .17 hours = 10,319).
The changes in § 668.605(f) will
require institutions to provide the
warning notices to prospective students
who express interest in the effected GE
programs. We estimate that it will take
the 69,805 prospective students 10
minutes to read the warning and go to
the program information website to
acknowledge receiving the information
for a total of 11,867 hours (69,805
students × .17 hours = 11,867).
The total estimated increase in burden
to OMB Control Number 1845–0173 for
§ 668.605 is 22,924 hours with a total
rounded estimated cost of $529,322.
GE STUDENT WARNINGS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS—OMB CONTROL NUMBER 1845–0173
Affected entity
Respondent
Burden hours
Cost $48.05 per
institution
$22.26 per
individual
Individual ..................................................................................
Private nonprofit .......................................................................
Proprietary ...............................................................................
Public .......................................................................................
130,505
9
71
2
130,505
18
142
4
22,186
81
639
18
$493,860
3,893
30,704
865
Total ..................................................................................
130,587
130,669
22,924
529,322
Consistent with the discussions
above, the following chart describes the
sections of the final regulations
involving information collections, the
information being collected and the
collections that the Department will
submit to OMB for approval and public
comment under the PRA, and the
estimated costs associated with the
information collections. The monetized
net cost of the increased burden for
institutions, lenders, guaranty agencies
and students, using wage data
developed using Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) data. For individuals,
we have used the median hourly wage
for all occupations, which is $22.26 per
hour according to BLS (www.bls.gov/
oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000). For
institutions we have used the median
hourly wage for Education
Administrators, Postsecondary, which is
$48.05 per hour according to BLS
(www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oes119033.htm).
Estimated costs—
$48.05 institutional
$22.26 individual
unless otherwise noted
Regulatory
section
Information collection
OMB control number and
estimated burden
§ 668.43 .......
Amend § 668.43 to establish a website for the posting and distribution of
key information pertaining to the institution’s educational programs,
and to require institutions to provide information about how to access
that website to a prospective student before the student enrolls, registers, or makes a financial commitment to the institution.
Add a new § 668.407 to require current and prospective students to acknowledge having seen the information on the program information
website maintained by the Secretary if an eligible program has failed
the D/E rates measure, to specify the content and delivery of such acknowledgments, and to require that students must provide the acknowledgment before the institution enters an enrollment agreement.
Add a new § 668.408 to establish institutional reporting requirements for
students who enroll in, complete, or withdraw from a GE program or
eligible non-GE program and to establish the reporting timeframe.
1845–0022 +225,900 hrs
$+10,854,495.
1845–0174 +15,739 .......
$+370,441.
Burden will be cleared at
a later date through a
separate information
collection.
1845–0173 +22,924 .......
Costs will be cleared
through separate information collection.
§ 668.407 .....
§ 668.408 .....
§ 668.605 .....
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Responses
Add a new § 668.605 to require warnings to current and prospective students if a GE program is at risk of losing title IV, HEA eligibility, to
specify the content and delivery parameters of such notifications, and
to require that students must acknowledge having seen the warning
before the institution may enter an enrollment agreement, complete
registration, or disburse any title IV, HEA funds.
The total burden hours and change in
burden hours associated with each OMB
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Control number affected by the final
PO 00000
Frm 00182
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
$+529,322.
regulations follows: 1845–0022, 1845–
0173, 1845–0174.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Total burden
hours
Control No.
Change in burden
hours
1845–0022 ...................................................................................................................................................
1845–0173 ...................................................................................................................................................
1845–0174 ...................................................................................................................................................
2,514,148
15,739
22,924
+225,900
+15,739
+22,924
Total ......................................................................................................................................................
2,552,811
264,563
If you want to comment on the final
information collection requirements,
please send your comments to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs in
OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the
U.S. Department of Education. Send
these comments by email to OIRA_
DOCKET@omb.eop.gov or by fax to
(202)395–6974. You may also send a
copy of these comments to the
Department contact named in the
ADDRESSES section of the preamble.
We have prepared the Information
Collection Request (ICR) for these
collections. You may review the ICR
which is available at www.reginfo.gov.
Click on Information Collection Review.
These collections are identified as
collections 1845–0022, 1845–0173, and
1845–0174.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34
CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
13. Federalism
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70185
Executive Order 13132 requires us to
provide meaningful and timely input by
State and local elected officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.
‘‘Federalism implications’’ means
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. The final
regulations do not have federalism
implications.
Accessible Format: On request to one
of the program contact persons listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document in an
accessible format. The Department will
provide the requestor with an accessible
format that may include Rich Text
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a
thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc, or
other accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. You may access the official
edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations at
www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can
view this document, as well as all other
documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
List of Subjects
34 CFR Part 600
Colleges and universities, Foreign
relations, Grant programs—education,
Loan programs-education, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Selective Service System, Student aid,
Vocational education.
34 CFR Part 668
Administrative practice and
procedure, Aliens, Colleges and
universities, Consumer protection,
Grant programs-education, Loan
programs—education, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Selective
Service System, Student aid, Vocational
education.
Miguel A. Cardona,
Secretary of Education.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Secretary amends parts
600 and 668 of title 34 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PO 00000
PART 600—INSTITUTIONAL
ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE HIGHER
EDUCATION ACT OF 1965, AS
AMENDED
1. The authority citation for part 600
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001, 1002, 1003,
1088, 1091, 1094, 1099b, and 1099c, unless
otherwise noted.
2. Section 600.10 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (c)(3) as
paragraph (c)(4) and adding a new
paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
■
§ 600.10 Date, extent, duration, and
consequence of eligibility.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(3) For a gainful employment program
under 34 CFR part 668, subpart S,
subject to any restrictions in 34 CFR
668.603 on establishing or
reestablishing the eligibility of the
program, an eligible institution must
update its application under § 600.21.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 600.21 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory
text.
■ b. In paragraph (a)(11)(iv), removing
the word ‘‘or’’.
■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(11)(v).
■ d. Adding paragraph (a)(11)(vi).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§ 600.21
Updating application information.
(a) Reporting requirements. Except as
provided in paragraph (b) of this
section, an eligible institution must
report to the Secretary, in a manner
prescribed by the Secretary and no later
than 10 days after the change occurs,
any change in the following:
*
*
*
*
*
(11) * * *
(v) Changing the program’s name,
classification of instructional program
(CIP) code, or credential level; or
(vi) Updating the certification
pursuant to 34 CFR 668.604(b).
*
*
*
*
*
PART 668—STUDENT ASSISTANCE
GENERAL PROVISIONS
4. The authority citation for part 668
is revised to read as follows:
■
Frm 00183
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70186
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001–1003, 1070g,
1085, 1088, 1091, 1092, 1094, 1099c, 1099c–
1, 1221e–3, and 1231a, unless otherwise
noted.
Section 668.14 also issued under 20 U.S.C.
1085, 1088, 1091, 1092, 1094, 1099a–3,
1099c, and 1141.
Section 668.41 also issued under 20 U.S.C.
1092, 1094, 1099c.
Section 668.91 also issued under 20 U.S.C.
1082, 1094.
Section 668.171 also issued under 20
U.S.C. 1094 and 1099c and 5 U.S.C. 404.
Section 668.172 also issued under 20
U.S.C. 1094 and 1099c and 5 U.S.C. 404.
Section 668.175 also issued under 20
U.S.C. 1094 and 1099c.
5. Section 668.2 is amended by adding
to paragraph (b), in alphabetical order,
definitions of ‘‘Annual debt-to-earnings
rate (annual D/E rate),’’ ‘‘Classification
of instructional program (CIP) code,’’
‘‘Cohort period,’’ ‘‘Credential level,’’
‘‘Debt-to-earnings rates (D/E rates),’’
‘‘Discretionary debt-to-earnings rate
(discretionary D/E rate),’’ ‘‘Earnings
premium,’’ ‘‘Earnings threshold,’’
‘‘Eligible non-GE program,’’ ‘‘Federal
agency with earnings data,’’ ‘‘Gainful
employment program (GE program),’’
‘‘Institutional grants and scholarships,’’
‘‘Length of the program,’’ ‘‘Metropolitan
statistical area,’’ ‘‘Poverty Guideline,’’
‘‘Prospective student,’’ ‘‘Qualifying
graduate program,’’ ‘‘Student,’’ and
‘‘Substantially similar program’’ to read
as follows:
■
§ 668.2
General definitions.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
Annual debt-to-earnings rate (annual
D/E rate): The ratio of a program’s
annual loan payment amount to the
annual earnings of the students who
completed the program, expressed as a
percentage, as calculated under
§ 668.403.
*
*
*
*
*
Classification of instructional
program (CIP) code: A taxonomy of
instructional program classifications
and descriptions developed by the U.S.
Department of Education’s National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
Specific programs offered by
institutions are classified using a sixdigit CIP code.
Cohort period: The set of award years
used to identify a cohort of students
who completed a program and whose
debt and earnings outcomes are used to
calculate debt-to-earnings rates and the
earnings premium measure under
subpart Q of this part. The Secretary
uses a 2-year cohort period to calculate
the debt-to-earnings rates and earnings
premium measure for a program when
the number of students (after exclusions
identified in §§ 668.403(e) and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
668.404(c)) in the 2-year cohort period
is 30 or more. The Secretary uses a 4year cohort period to calculate the debtto-earnings rates and earnings premium
measure when the number of students
completing the program in the two-year
cohort period is fewer than 30 and when
the number of students completing the
program in the 4-year cohort period is
30 or more. The cohort period covers
consecutive award years that are—
(1) For the 2-year cohort period—
(i) The third and fourth award years
prior to the year for which the most
recent data are available from the
Federal agency with earnings data at the
time the D/E rates and earnings
premium measure are calculated,
pursuant to §§ 668.403 and 668.404; or
(ii) For a qualifying graduate program,
the sixth and seventh award years prior
to the year for which the most recent
data are available from the Federal
agency with earnings data at the time
the D/E rates and earnings premium
measure are calculated.
(2) For the four-year cohort period—
(i) The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth
award years prior to the year for which
the most recent data are available from
the Federal agency with earnings data at
the time the D/E rates and earnings
premium measure are calculated,
pursuant to §§ 668.403 and 668.404; or
(ii) For a qualifying graduate program,
the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth
award years prior to the year for which
the most recent earnings data are
available from the Federal agency with
earnings data at the time the D/E rates
and earnings premium measure are
calculated.
Credential level: The level of the
academic credential awarded by an
institution to students who complete the
program. For the purposes of this part,
the undergraduate credential levels are:
undergraduate certificate or diploma,
associate degree, bachelor’s degree, and
post-baccalaureate certificate; and the
graduate credential levels are master’s
degree, doctoral degree, firstprofessional degree (e.g., MD, DDS, JD),
and graduate certificate (including a
postgraduate certificate).
Debt-to-earnings rates (D/E rates): The
discretionary debt-to-earnings rate and
annual debt-to-earnings rate as
calculated under § 668.403.
*
*
*
*
*
Discretionary debt-to-earnings rate
(discretionary D/E rate): The percentage
of a program’s annual loan payment
compared to the discretionary earnings
of the students who completed the
program, as calculated under § 668.403.
Earnings premium: The amount by
which the median annual earnings of
PO 00000
Frm 00184
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
students who recently completed a
program exceed the earnings threshold,
as calculated under § 668.404. If the
median annual earnings of recent
completers is equal to the earnings
threshold, the earnings premium is zero.
If the median annual earnings of recent
completers is less than the earnings
threshold, the earnings premium is
negative.
Earnings threshold: Based on data
from the Census Bureau, the median
earnings for working adults aged 25–34,
who either worked during the year or
indicated they were unemployed (i.e.,
not employed but looking for and
available to work) when interviewed,
with only a high school diploma (or
recognized equivalent)—
(1) In the State in which the
institution is located; or
(2) Nationally, if fewer than 50
percent of the students in the program
are from the State where the institution
is located, or if the institution is a
foreign institution.
Eligible non-GE program: An
educational program other than a
gainful employment (GE) program
offered by an institution and included
in the institution’s participation in the
title IV, HEA programs, identified by a
combination of the institution’s six-digit
Office of Postsecondary Education ID
(OPEID) number, the program’s six-digit
CIP code as assigned by the institution
or determined by the Secretary, and the
program’s credential level. Includes all
coursework associated with the
program’s credential level.
*
*
*
*
*
Federal agency with earnings data: A
Federal agency with which the
Department enters into an agreement to
access earnings data for the D/E rates
and earnings threshold measure. The
agency must have individual earnings
data sufficient to match with title IV,
HEA recipients who completed any
eligible program during the cohort
period and may include agencies such
as the Treasury Department (including
the Internal Revenue Service), the Social
Security Administration (SSA), the
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), and the Census Bureau.
*
*
*
*
*
Gainful employment program (GE
program): An educational program
offered by an institution under
§ 668.8(c)(3) or (d) and identified by a
combination of the institution’s six-digit
OPEID number, the program’s six-digit
CIP code as assigned by the institution
or determined by the Secretary, and the
program’s credential level.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Institutional grants and scholarships:
Assistance that the institution or its
affiliate controls or directs to reduce or
offset the original amount of a student’s
institutional costs and that does not
have to be repaid. Typically, an
institutional grant or scholarship
includes a grant, scholarship,
fellowship, discount, or fee waiver.
*
*
*
*
*
Length of the program: The amount of
time in weeks, months, or years that is
specified in the institution’s catalog,
marketing materials, or other official
publications for a student to complete
the requirements needed to obtain the
degree or credential offered by the
program.
*
*
*
*
*
Metropolitan statistical area: A core
area containing a substantial population
nucleus, together with adjacent
communities having a high degree of
economic and social integration with
that core.
*
*
*
*
*
Poverty Guideline: The Poverty
Guideline for a single person in the
continental United States, as published
by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services and available at https://
aspe.hhs.gov/poverty or its successor
site.
*
*
*
*
*
Prospective student: An individual
who has contacted an eligible
institution for the purpose of requesting
information about enrolling in a
program or who has been contacted
directly by the institution or by a third
party on behalf of the institution about
enrolling in a program.
Qualifying graduate program: (1) For
the first three award years that the
Secretary calculates debt-to-earnings
rates and the earnings premium measure
under subpart Q of this part (‘‘initial
period’’), a graduate program—
(i) Whose students must complete
required postgraduation training
programs to obtain licensure in one of
the following fields: medicine,
osteopathy, dentistry, clinical
psychology, marriage and family
counseling, clinical social work, and
clinical counseling; and
(ii) For which the institution attests,
in the manner established by the
Secretary, that—
(A) If necessary for licensure, the
program is accredited by an accrediting
agency that meets State requirements;
and
(B) At least half of the program’s
graduates obtain licensure in a State
where the postgraduation training
requirements apply.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
(2)(i) After the initial period, the
graduate programs that are on the list
described in paragraph (2)(ii) of this
definition and for which the Secretary
has received an attestation that meets
the requirements in paragraph (1)(ii) of
this definition.
(ii) For the first award year following
the initial period, and every three years
thereafter, using publicly available
information and information received in
response to a request for information,
the Secretary publishes in the Federal
Register a list of graduate degree fields
(based on their credential level and CIP
codes) that may contain qualifying
graduate programs by identifying
fields—
(A) That lead to a graduate (master’s,
first-professional, or doctoral) degree;
(B) For which the Department
determines that graduates must
complete a required postgraduate
training program that takes, on average,
three or more years to complete; and
(C) For which, based on College
Scorecard data, the Secretary
determines that a majority of programs
with the same credential level and CIP
code have outlier earnings growth. An
individual program has outlier earnings
growth if the percent change in median
earnings between its earnings measured
one or three years post-completion and
its earnings measured either five or ten
years post-completion is more than two
standard deviations above the average
earnings growth for other programs with
the same credential level.
(3) For the purpose of this definition,
a ‘‘required postgraduation training
program’’ is a supervised training
program that—
(i) Requires the student to hold a
degree in one of the listed fields in
paragraph (1)(i) of this definition or one
of the fields identified in the list
described in paragraph (2)(ii) of this
definition; and
(ii) Must be completed before the
student may be licensed by a State and
board certified for professional practice
or service.
*
*
*
*
*
Student: For the purposes of subparts
Q and S of this part and of § 668.43(d),
an individual who received title IV,
HEA program funds for enrolling in the
program.
*
*
*
*
*
Substantially similar program: For the
purposes of subpart Q and S of this part,
a program is substantially similar to
another program if the two programs
share the same four-digit CIP code. The
Secretary presumes a program is not
substantially similar to another program
if the two programs have different four-
PO 00000
Frm 00185
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70187
digit CIP codes, but the institution must
provide an explanation of how the new
program is not substantially similar to
the ineligible or voluntarily
discontinued program with its
certification under § 668.604.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Section 668.43 is amended by:
■ a. Revising the section heading.
■ b. Adding paragraph (d).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§ 668.43 Institutional and programmatic
information.
*
*
*
*
*
(d)(1) Program information website.
Beginning on July 1, 2026, the Secretary
will establish and maintain a website
with information about institutions and
their educational programs. For this
purpose, an institution must provide to
the Department such information about
the institution and its programs as the
Secretary prescribes through a notice
published in the Federal Register. The
Secretary may conduct consumer testing
to inform the design of the website.
(i) The website must include, but is
not limited to, the following items, to
the extent reasonably available:
(A) The published length of the
program in calendar time (i.e., weeks,
months, years).
(B) The total number of individuals
enrolled in the program during the most
recently completed award year.
(C) The total cost of tuition and fees,
and the total cost of books, supplies,
and equipment, that a student would
incur for completing the program within
the published length of the program.
(D) Of the individuals enrolled in the
program during the most recently
completed award year, the percentage
who received a Direct Loan Program
loan, a private loan, or both for
enrollment in the program.
(E) As calculated by the Secretary, the
median loan debt of students who
completed the program during the most
recently completed award year or for all
students who completed or withdrew
from the program during that award
year.
(F) As provided by the Secretary, the
median earnings of students who
completed the program or of all students
who completed or withdrew from the
program, during a period determined by
the Secretary.
(G) Whether the program is
programmatically accredited and the
name of the accrediting agency, as
reported to the Secretary.
(H) As calculated by the Secretary, the
program’s debt-to-earnings rates.
(I) As calculated by the Secretary, the
program’s earnings premium measure.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70188
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
(ii) The website may also include other
information deemed appropriate by the
Secretary, such as the following items:
(A) The primary occupations (by
name, SOC code, or both) that the
program prepares students to enter,
along with links to occupational profiles
on O*NET (www.onetonline.org) or its
successor site.
(B) As reported to or calculated by the
Secretary, the program or institution’s
completion rates and withdrawal rates
for full-time and less-than-full-time
students.
(C) As calculated by the Secretary, the
medians of the total cost of tuition and
fees, and the total cost of books,
supplies, and equipment, and the total
net cost of attendance paid by students
completing the program.
(D) As calculated by the Secretary, the
loan repayment rate for students or
graduates who entered repayment on
Direct Loan Program loans during a
period determined by the Secretary.
(E) Whether students who graduate
from a program are required to complete
postgraduation training program to
obtain licensure before eligible for
independent practice.
(2) Program web pages. The
institution must provide a prominent
link to, and any other needed
information to access, the website
maintained by the Secretary on any web
page containing academic, cost,
financial aid, or admissions information
about the program or institution. The
Secretary may require the institution to
modify a web page if the information is
not sufficiently prominent, readily
accessible, clear, conspicuous, or direct.
(3) Distribution to prospective
students. The institution must provide
the relevant information to access the
website maintained by the Secretary to
any prospective student, or a third party
acting on behalf of the prospective
student, before the prospective student
signs an enrollment agreement,
completes registration, or makes a
financial commitment to the institution.
(4) Distribution to enrolled students.
The institution must provide the
relevant information to access the
website maintained by the Secretary to
any enrolled title IV, HEA recipient
prior to the start date of the first
payment period associated with each
subsequent award year in which the
student continues enrollment at the
institution.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. Section 668.91 is amended by:
■ a. In paragraph (a)(3)(v)(B)(2),
removing the period at the end of the
paragraph and adding, in its place, ‘‘;
and’’.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
■
b. Adding paragraph (a)(3)(vi).
The addition reads as follows:
§ 668.91
Initial and final decisions.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(vi) In a termination action against a
GE program based upon the program’s
failure to meet the requirements in
§ 668.403 or § 668.404, the hearing
official must terminate the program’s
eligibility unless the hearing official
concludes that the Secretary erred in the
applicable calculation.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. Add subpart Q to read as follows:
Subpart Q—Financial Value Transparency
Sec.
668.401 Financial value transparency scope
and purpose.
668.402 Financial value transparency
framework.
668.403 Calculating D/E rates.
668.404 Calculating earnings premium
measure.
668.405 Process for obtaining data and
calculating D/E rates and earnings
premium measure.
668.406 Determination of the D/E rates and
earnings premium measure.
668.407 Student acknowledgments.
668.408 Reporting requirements.
668.409 Severability.
Subpart Q—Financial Value
Transparency
§ 668.401 Financial value transparency
scope and purpose.
(a) General. Except as provided under
paragraph (b) of this section, this
subpart applies to a GE program or
eligible non-GE program offered by an
eligible institution, and establishes the
rules and procedures under which—
(1) An institution reports information
about the program to the Secretary; and
(2) Except as provided in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, the Secretary
assesses the program’s debt and
earnings outcomes.
(b) Applicability. (1) This subpart
does not apply to institutions located in
U.S. Territories or freely associated
states, except that such institutions are
subject to the reporting requirements in
§ 668.408 and the Secretary will follow
the procedures in §§ 668.403(b) and (d)
and 668.405(b) and (c) to calculate
median debt and obtain earnings
information for their GE programs and
eligible non-GE programs.
(2) For each award year that the
Secretary calculates D/E rates or the
earnings premium measure under
§ 668.402, this subpart does not apply to
an institution if, over the most recently
completed four award years, it offered
no groups of substantially similar
programs, defined as all programs in the
PO 00000
Frm 00186
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
same four-digit CIP code at an
institution, with 30 or more completers.
§ 668.402 Financial value transparency
framework.
(a) General. The Secretary assesses the
program’s debt and earnings outcomes
using debt-to-earnings rates (D/E rates)
and an earnings premium measure.
(b) Debt-to-earnings rates. The
Secretary calculates for each award year
two D/E rates for an eligible program,
the discretionary debt-to-earnings rate,
and the annual debt-to-earnings rate,
using the procedures in §§ 668.403 and
668.405.
(c) Outcomes of the D/E rates. (1) A
program passes the D/E rates if—
(i) Its discretionary debt-to-earnings
rate is less than or equal to 20 percent;
(ii) Its annual debt-to-earnings rate is
less than or equal to 8 percent; or
(iii) The denominator (median annual
or discretionary earnings) of either rate
is zero and the numerator (median debt
payments) is zero.
(2) A program fails the D/E rates if—
(i) Its discretionary debt-to-earnings
rate is greater than 20 percent or the
income for the denominator of the rate
(median discretionary earnings) is
negative or zero and the numerator
(median debt payments) is positive; and
(ii) Its annual debt-to-earnings rate is
greater than 8 percent or the
denominator of the rate (median annual
earnings) is zero and the numerator
(median debt payments) is positive.
(d) Earnings premium measure. For
each award year, the Secretary
calculates the earnings premium
measure for an eligible program, using
the procedures in §§ 668.404 and
668.405.
(e) Outcomes of the earnings premium
measure. (1) A program passes the
earnings premium measure if the
median annual earnings of the students
who completed the program exceed the
earnings threshold.
(2) A program fails the earnings
premium measure if the median annual
earnings of the students who completed
the program are equal to or less than the
earnings threshold.
§ 668.403
Calculating D/E rates.
(a) General. Except as provided under
paragraph (f) of this section, for each
award year, the Secretary calculates D/
E rates for a program as follows:
(1) Discretionary debt-to-earnings rate
= annual loan payment/(the median
annual earnings—(1.5 x Poverty
Guideline)). For the purposes of this
paragraph (a)(1), the Secretary applies
the Poverty Guideline for the most
recent calendar year for which annual
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
earnings are obtained under paragraph
(c) of this section.
(2) Annual debt-to-earnings rate =
annual loan payment/the median
annual earnings.
(b) Annual loan payment. The
Secretary calculates the annual loan
payment for a program by—
(1)(i) Determining the median loan
debt of the students who completed the
program during the cohort period, based
on the lesser of the loan debt incurred
by each student as determined under
paragraph (d) of this section or the total
amount for tuition and fees and books,
equipment, and supplies for each
student, less the amount of institutional
grant or scholarship funds provided to
that student;
(ii) Removing, if applicable, the
appropriate number of largest loan debts
as described in § 668.405(d)(2); and
(iii) Calculating the median of the
remaining amounts; and
(2) Amortizing the median loan
debt—
(i)(A) Over a 10-year repayment
period for a program that leads to an
undergraduate certificate, a postbaccalaureate certificate, an associate
degree, or a graduate certificate;
(B) Over a 15-year repayment period
for a program that leads to a bachelor’s
degree or a master’s degree; or
(C) Over a 20-year repayment period
for any other program; and
(ii) Using an annual interest rate that
is the average of the annual statutory
interest rates on Federal Direct
Unsubsidized Loans that were in effect
during—
(A) The three consecutive award
years, ending in the final year of the
cohort period, for undergraduate
certificate programs, post-baccalaureate
certificate programs, and associate
degree programs. For these programs,
the Secretary uses the Federal Direct
Unsubsidized Loan interest rate
applicable to undergraduate students;
(B) The three consecutive award
years, ending in the final year of the
cohort period, for graduate certificate
programs and master’s degree programs.
For these programs, the Secretary uses
the Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan
interest rate applicable to graduate
students;
(C) The six consecutive award years,
ending in the final year of the cohort
period, for bachelor’s degree programs.
For these programs, the Secretary uses
the Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan
interest rate applicable to undergraduate
students; and
(D) The six consecutive award years,
ending in the final year of the cohort
period, for doctoral programs and first
professional degree programs. For these
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
programs, the Secretary uses the Federal
Direct Unsubsidized Loan interest rate
applicable to graduate students.
(c) Annual earnings. (1) The Secretary
obtains from a Federal agency with
earnings data, under § 668.405, the most
currently available median annual
earnings of the students who completed
the program during the cohort period
and who are not excluded under
paragraph (e) of this section; and
(2) The Secretary uses the median
annual earnings to calculate the D/E
rates.
(d) Loan debt and assessed charges.
(1) In determining the loan debt for a
student, the Secretary includes—
(i) The amount of Direct Loans that
the student borrowed (total amount
disbursed less any cancellations or
adjustments except for those related to
false certification, borrower defense
discharges, or categorical debt relief
initiated under the Secretary’s statutory
authority) for enrollment in the
program, excluding Direct PLUS Loans
made to parents of dependent students
and Direct Unsubsidized Loans that
were converted from TEACH Grants;
(ii) Any private education loans as
defined in 34 CFR 601.2, including
private education loans made by the
institution, that the student borrowed
for enrollment in the program and that
are required to be reported by the
institution under § 668.408; and
(iii) The amount outstanding, as of the
date the student completes the program,
on any other credit (including any
unpaid charges) extended by or on
behalf of the institution for enrollment
in any program attended at the
institution that the student is obligated
to repay after completing the program,
including extensions of credit described
in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the
definition of, and excluded from, the
term ‘‘private education loan’’ in 34 CFR
601.2;
(2) The Secretary attributes all the
loan debt incurred by the student for
enrollment in any—
(i) Undergraduate program at the
institution to the highest credentialed
undergraduate program subsequently
completed by the student at the
institution as of the end of the most
recently completed award year prior to
the calculation of the D/E rates under
this section; and
(ii) Graduate program at the
institution to the highest credentialed
graduate program subsequently
completed by the student at the
institution as of the end of the most
recently completed award year prior to
the calculation of the D/E rates under
this section; and
PO 00000
Frm 00187
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70189
(3) The Secretary excludes any loan
debt incurred by the student for
enrollment in any program at any other
institution. However, the Secretary may
include loan debt incurred by the
student for enrollment in programs at
other institutions if the institution and
the other institutions are under common
ownership or control, as determined by
the Secretary in accordance with 34 CFR
600.31.
(e) Exclusions. The Secretary excludes
a student from both the numerator and
the denominator of the D/E rates
calculation if the Secretary determines
that—
(1) One or more of the student’s Direct
Loan Program loans are under
consideration by the Secretary, or have
been approved, for a discharge on the
basis of the student’s total and
permanent disability, under 34 CFR
674.61, 682.402, or 685.212;
(2) The student was enrolled full time
in any other eligible program at the
institution or at another institution
during the calendar year for which the
Secretary obtains earnings information
under paragraph (c) of this section;
(3) For undergraduate programs, the
student completed a higher credentialed
undergraduate program at the
institution subsequent to completing the
program as of the end of the most
recently completed award year prior to
the calculation of the D/E rates under
this section;
(4) For graduate programs, the student
completed a higher credentialed
graduate program at the institution
subsequent to completing the program
as of the end of the most recently
completed award year prior to the
calculation of the D/E rates under this
section;
(5) The student is enrolled in an
approved prison education program;
(6) The student is enrolled in a
comprehensive transition and
postsecondary program; or
(7) The student died.
(f) D/E rates not issued. The Secretary
does not issue D/E rates for a program
under § 668.406 if—
(1) After applying the exclusions in
paragraph (e) of this section, fewer than
30 students completed the program
during the two-year or four-year cohort
period; or
(2) The Federal agency with earnings
data does not provide the median
earnings for the program as provided
under paragraph (c) of this section.
§ 668.404 Calculating earnings premium
measure.
(a) General. Except as provided under
paragraph (d) of this section, for each
award year, the Secretary calculates the
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
70190
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
earnings premium measure for a
program by determining whether the
median annual earnings of the students
who completed the program exceed the
earnings threshold.
(b) Median annual earnings; earnings
threshold. (1) The Secretary obtains
from a Federal agency with earnings
data, under § 668.405, the most
currently available median annual
earnings of the students who completed
the program during the cohort period
and who are not excluded under
paragraph (c) of this section; and
(2) The Secretary uses the median
annual earnings of students with a high
school diploma or GED using data from
the Census Bureau to calculate the
earnings threshold described in § 668.2.
(3) The Secretary determines the
earnings thresholds and publishes the
thresholds annually through a notice in
the Federal Register.
(c) Exclusions. The Secretary excludes
a student from the earnings premium
measure calculation if the Secretary
determines that—
(1) One or more of the student’s Direct
Loan Program loans are under
consideration by the Secretary, or have
been approved, for a discharge on the
basis of the student’s total and
permanent disability, under 34 CFR
674.61, 682.402, or 685.212;
(2) The student was enrolled full-time
in any other eligible program at the
institution or at another institution
during the calendar year for which the
Secretary obtains earnings information
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section;
(3) For undergraduate programs, the
student completed a higher credentialed
undergraduate program at the
institution subsequent to completing the
program as of the end of the most
recently completed award year prior to
the calculation of the earnings premium
measure under this section;
(4) For graduate programs, the student
completed a higher credentialed
graduate program at the institution
subsequent to completing the program
as of the end of the most recently
completed award year prior to the
calculation of the earnings premium
measure under this section;
(5) The student is enrolled in an
approved prison education program;
(6) The student is enrolled in a
comprehensive transition and
postsecondary program; or
(7) The student died.
(d) Earnings premium measures not
issued. The Secretary does not issue the
earnings premium measure for a
program under § 668.406 if—
(1) After applying the exclusions in
paragraph (c) of this section, fewer than
30 students completed the program
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
during the two-year or four-year cohort
period; or
(2) The Federal agency with earnings
data does not provide the median
earnings for the program as provided
under paragraph (b) of this section.
§ 668.405 Process for obtaining data and
calculating D/E rates and earnings premium
measure.
(a) Administrative data. In calculating
the D/E rates and earnings premium
measure for a program, the Secretary
uses student enrollment, disbursement,
and program data, or other data the
institution is required to report to the
Secretary to support its administration
of, or participation in, the title IV, HEA
programs. In accordance with
procedures established by the Secretary,
the institution must update or otherwise
correct any reported data no later than
60 days after the end of an award year.
(b) Process overview. The Secretary
uses the administrative data to—
(1) Compile a list of students who
completed each program during the
cohort period. The Secretary—
(i) Removes from those lists students
who are excluded under § 668.403(e) or
§ 668.404(c);
(ii) Provides the list to institutions;
and
(iii) Allows the institution to correct
the information reported by the
institution on which the list was based,
no later than 60 days after the date the
Secretary provides the list to the
institution;
(2) Obtain from a Federal agency with
earnings data the median annual
earnings of the students on each list, as
provided in paragraph (c) of this
section; and
(3) Calculate the D/E rates and the
earnings premium measure and provide
them to the institution.
(c) Obtaining earnings data. For each
list submitted to the Federal agency
with earnings data, the agency returns to
the Secretary—
(1) The median annual earnings of the
students on the list whom the Federal
agency with earnings data has matched
to earnings data, in aggregate and not in
individual form; and
(2) The number, but not the identities,
of students on the list that the Federal
agency with earnings data could not
match.
(d) Calculating D/E rates and earnings
premium measure. (1) If the Federal
agency with earnings data includes
reports from records of earnings on at
least 30 students, the Secretary uses the
median annual earnings provided by the
Federal agency with earnings data to
calculate the D/E rates and earnings
premium measure for each program.
PO 00000
Frm 00188
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(2) If the Federal agency with earnings
data reports that it was unable to match
one or more of the students on the final
list, the Secretary does not include in
the calculation of the median loan debt
for D/E rates the same number of
students with the highest loan debts as
the number of students whose earnings
the Federal agency with earnings data
did not match. For example, if the
Federal agency with earnings data is
unable to match three students out of
100 students, the Secretary orders by
amount the debts of the 100 listed
students and excludes from the D/E
rates calculation the three largest loan
debts.
§ 668.406 Determination of the D/E rates
and earnings premium measure.
(a) For each award year for which the
Secretary calculates D/E rates and the
earnings premium measure for a
program, the Secretary issues a notice of
determination.
(b) The notice of determination
informs the institution of the following:
(1) The D/E rates for each program as
determined under § 668.403.
(2) The earnings premium measure for
each program as determined under
§ 668.404.
(3) The determination by the
Secretary of whether each program is
passing or failing, as described in
§ 668.402, and the consequences of that
determination.
(4) Whether the student
acknowledgment is required under
§ 668.407.
(5) For GE programs, whether the
institution is required to provide the
student warning under § 668.605.
(6) For GE programs, whether the
program could become ineligible under
subpart S of this part based on its final
D/E rates or earnings premium measure
for the next award year for which D/E
rates or the earnings premium measure
are calculated for the program.
§ 668.407
Student acknowledgments.
(a) Beginning on July 1, 2026, if an
eligible program, other than an
undergraduate degree program, has
failing D/E rates, the Secretary notifies
the institution under § 668.406(b)(4) that
student acknowledgments are required
for such program in the manner
specified in this section.
(b)(1) If student acknowledgements
are required, prospective students must
acknowledge that they have viewed the
information provided through the
program information website
established and maintained by the
Secretary described in § 668.43(d).
(2) The Department will administer
and collect the acknowledgment from
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
students through the program
information website.
(3) Prospective students must provide
such acknowledgments until:
(i) The Secretary notifies the
institution pursuant to § 668.406 that
the program has passing D/E rates; or
(ii) Three years after the institution
was last notified that the program had
failing D/E rates, whichever is earlier.
(c)(1) A prospective student must
provide the acknowledgment before the
institution enters into an agreement to
enroll the student.
(2) The Secretary monitors the
institution’s compliance with the
requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section through audits, program
reviews, or other investigations.
(d) The acknowledgment required in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section does not
mitigate the institution’s responsibility
to provide accurate information to
students concerning program status, nor
will it be considered as dispositive
evidence against a student’s claim if
applying for a loan discharge.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
§ 668.408
Reporting requirements.
(a) Data elements. In accordance with
procedures established by the Secretary,
an institution offering any group of
substantially similar programs, defined
as all programs in the same four-digit
CIP code at an institution, with 30 or
more completers in total over the four
most recent award years must report to
the Department—
(1) For each GE program and eligible
non-GE program, for its most recently
completed award year—
(i) The name, CIP code, credential
level, and length of the program;
(ii) Whether the program is
programmatically accredited and, if so,
the name of the accrediting agency;
(iii) Whether the program meets
licensure requirements or prepares
students to sit for a licensure
examination in a particular occupation
for each State in the institution’s
metropolitan statistical area;
(iv) The total number of students
enrolled in the program during the most
recently completed award year,
including both recipients and nonrecipients of title IV, HEA funds; and
(v) Whether the program is a
qualifying graduate program whose
students are required to complete
postgraduate training programs, as
described in the definition under
§ 668.2;
(2) For each student—
(i) Information needed to identify the
student and the institution;
(ii) The date the student initially
enrolled in the program;
(iii) The student’s attendance dates
and attendance status (e.g., enrolled,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
withdrawn, or completed) in the
program during the award year;
(iv) The student’s enrollment status
(e.g., full time, three-quarter time, half
time, less than half time) as of the first
day of the student’s enrollment in the
program;
(v) The student’s total annual cost of
attendance (COA);
(vi) The total tuition and fees assessed
to the student for the award year;
(vii) The student’s residency tuition
status by State or district;
(viii) The student’s total annual
allowance for books, supplies, and
equipment from their COA under HEA
section 472;
(ix) The student’s total annual
allowance for housing and food from
their COA under HEA section 472;
(x) The amount of institutional grants
and scholarships disbursed to the
student;
(xi) The amount of other State, Tribal,
or private grants disbursed to the
student; and
(xii) The amount of any private
education loans disbursed to the student
for enrollment in the program that the
institution is, or should reasonably be,
aware of, including private education
loans made by the institution;
(3) If the student completed or
withdrew from the program during the
award year—
(i) The date the student completed or
withdrew from the program;
(ii) The total amount the student
received from private education loans,
as described in § 668.403(d)(1)(ii), for
enrollment in the program that the
institution is, or should reasonably be,
aware of;
(iii) The total amount of institutional
debt, as described in § 668.403(d)(1)(iii),
the student owes any party after
completing or withdrawing from the
program;
(iv) The total amount of tuition and
fees assessed the student for the
student’s entire enrollment in the
program;
(v) The total amount of the allowances
for books, supplies, and equipment
included in the student’s title IV, HEA
COA for each award year in which the
student was enrolled in the program, or
a higher amount if assessed the student
by the institution for such expenses; and
(vi) The total amount of institutional
grants and scholarships provided for the
student’s entire enrollment in the
program; and
(4) As described in a notice published
by the Secretary in the Federal Register,
any other information the Secretary
requires the institution to report.
(b) Initial and annual reporting. (1)
Except as provided under paragraph (c)
PO 00000
Frm 00189
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
70191
of this section, an institution must
report the information required under
paragraph (a) of this section no later
than—
(i) For programs other than qualifying
graduate programs, July 31, following
July 1, 2024, for the second through
seventh award years prior to July 1,
2024;
(ii) For qualifying graduate programs,
July 31, following July 1, 2024, for the
second through eighth award years prior
to July 1, 2024; and
(iii) For subsequent award years,
October 1, following the end of the
award year, unless the Secretary
establishes different dates in a notice
published in the Federal Register.
(2) For any award year, if an
institution fails to provide all or some
of the information required under
paragraph (a) of this section, the
institution must provide to the Secretary
an explanation, acceptable to the
Secretary, of why the institution failed
to comply with any of the reporting
requirements.
(c) Transitional reporting period and
metrics. (1) For the first six years for
which D/E rates and the earnings
premium are calculated under this part,
institutions may opt to report the
information required under paragraph
(a) of this section for its eligible
programs either—
(i) For the time periods described in
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
section; or
(ii) For only the two most recently
completed award years.
(2) If an institution provides
transitional reporting under paragraph
(c)(1)(ii) of this section, the Department
will calculate transitional D/E rates and
earnings premium measures using the
median debt for the period reported and
the earnings for six years.
§ 668.409
Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its
application to any person, act, or
practice is held invalid, the remainder
of this part and subpart, and the
application of this subpart’s provisions
to any other person, act, or practice, will
not be affected thereby.
■ 9. Add subpart S to read as follows:
Subpart S—Gainful Employment (GE)
Sec.
668.601 Gainful employment (GE) scope
and purpose.
668.602 Gainful employment criteria.
668.603 Ineligible GE programs.
668.604 Certification requirements for GE
programs.
668.605 Student warnings.
668.606 Severability.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
70192
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart S—Gainful Employment (GE)
§ 668.601 Gainful employment (GE) scope
and purpose.
(a) General. Except as provided under
paragraph (b) of this section, this
subpart applies to an educational
program offered by an eligible
institution that prepares students for
gainful employment in a recognized
occupation and establishes rules and
procedures under which the Secretary
determines that the program is eligible
for title IV, HEA program funds.
(b) Applicability. (1) This subpart
does not apply to programs offered by
institutions located in U.S. Territories or
freely associated states.
(2) For each award year that the
Secretary calculates D/E rates or the
earnings premium measure under
§ 668.402, this subpart does not apply to
an institution if, over the most recently
completed four award years, it offered
no groups of substantially similar
programs, defined as all programs in the
same four-digit CIP code at an
institution, with 30 or more completers
in total.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
§ 668.602
Gainful employment criteria.
(a) A GE program provides training
that prepares students for gainful
employment in a recognized occupation
if the program—
(1) Satisfies the applicable
certification requirements in § 668.604;
(2) Is not a failing program under the
D/E rates measure in § 668.402 in two
out of any three consecutive award
years for which the program’s D/E rates
are calculated; and
(3) Is not a failing program under the
earnings premium measure in § 668.402
in two out of any three consecutive
award years for which the program’s
earnings premium measure is
calculated.
(b) If the Secretary does not calculate
or issue D/E rates for a program for an
award year, the program receives no
result under the D/E rates for that award
year and remains in the same status
under the D/E rates as the previous
award year.
(c) In determining a program’s
eligibility, the Secretary disregards any
D/E rates that were calculated more than
five calculation years prior.
(d) If the Secretary does not calculate
or issue earnings premium measures for
a program for an award year, the
program receives no result under the
earnings premium measure for that
award year and remains in the same
status under the earnings premium
measure as the previous award year.
(e) In determining a program’s
eligibility, the Secretary disregards any
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
earnings premium that was calculated
more than five years prior.
§ 668.603
Ineligible GE programs.
(a) Ineligible programs. If a GE
program is a failing program under the
D/E rates measure in § 668.402 in two
out of any three consecutive award
years for which the program’s D/E rates
are calculated, or the earnings premium
measure in § 668.402 in two out of any
three consecutive award years for which
the program’s earnings premium
measure is calculated, the program is
ineligible and its participation in the
title IV, HEA programs ends upon the
earliest of—
(1) The issuance of a new Eligibility
and Certification Approval Report that
does not include that program;
(2) The completion of a termination
action of program eligibility, if an action
is initiated under subpart G of this part;
or
(3) A revocation of program eligibility
if the institution is provisionally
certified.
(b) Basis for appeal. If the Secretary
initiates an action under paragraph
(a)(2) of this section, the institution may
initiate an appeal under subpart G of
this part if it believes the Secretary erred
in the calculation of the program’s D/E
rates under § 668.403 or the earnings
premium measure under § 668.404.
Institutions may not dispute a program’s
ineligibility based upon its D/E rates or
the earnings premium measure except
as described in this paragraph (b).
(c) Restrictions—(1) Ineligible
program. Except as provided in
§ 668.26(d), an institution may not
disburse title IV, HEA program funds to
students enrolled in an ineligible
program.
(2) Period of ineligibility. An
institution may not seek to reestablish
the eligibility of a failing GE program
that it discontinued voluntarily either
before or after D/E rates or the earnings
premium measure are issued for that
program, or reestablish the eligibility of
a program that is ineligible under the
D/E rates or the earnings premium
measure, until three years following the
earlier of the date the program loses
eligibility under paragraph (a) of this
section or the date the institution
voluntarily discontinued the failing
program.
(3) Restoring eligibility. An ineligible
program, or a failing program that an
institution voluntarily discontinues,
remains ineligible until the institution
establishes the eligibility of that
program under § 668.604(c).
PO 00000
Frm 00190
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
§ 668.604 Certification requirements for
GE programs.
(a) Transitional certification for
existing programs. (1) Except as
provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, an institution must provide to
the Secretary no later than December 31,
2024, in accordance with procedures
established by the Secretary, a
certification signed by its most senior
executive officer that each of its
currently eligible GE programs included
on its Eligibility and Certification
Approval Report meets the requirements
of paragraph (d) of this section. The
Secretary accepts the certification as an
addendum to the institution’s program
participation agreement with the
Secretary under § 668.14.
(2) If an institution makes the
certification in its program participation
agreement pursuant to paragraph (b) of
this section between July 1 and
December 31, 2024, it is not required to
provide the transitional certification
under this paragraph (a).
(b) Program participation agreement
certification.
As a condition of its continued
participation in the title IV, HEA
programs, an institution must certify in
its program participation agreement
with the Secretary under § 668.14 that
each of its currently eligible GE
programs included on its Eligibility and
Certification Approval Report meets the
requirements of paragraph (d) of this
section. As provided under 34 CFR
600.21(a)(11)(vi), an institution must
update the certification within 10 days
if there are any changes in the approvals
for a program, or other changes for a
program that render an existing
certification no longer accurate.
(c) Establishing eligibility and
disbursing funds. (1) An institution
establishes a GE program’s eligibility for
title IV, HEA program funds by updating
the list of the institution’s eligible
programs maintained by the Department
to include that program, as provided
under 34 CFR 600.21(a)(11)(i). By
updating the list of the institution’s
eligible programs, the institution affirms
that the program satisfies the
certification requirements in paragraph
(d) of this section. Except as provided in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section, after the
institution updates its list of eligible
programs, the institution may disburse
title IV, HEA program funds to students
enrolled in that program.
(2) An institution may not update its
list of eligible programs to include a GE
program, or a GE program that is
substantially similar to a failing program
that the institution voluntarily
discontinued or became ineligible as
described in § 668.603(c), that was
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
subject to the three-year loss of
eligibility under § 668.603(c), until that
three-year period expires.
(d) GE program eligibility
certifications. An institution certifies for
each eligible GE program included on
its Eligibility and Certification Approval
Report, at the time and in the form
specified in this section, that such
program is approved by a recognized
accrediting agency or is otherwise
included in the institution’s
accreditation by its recognized
accrediting agency, or, if the institution
is a public postsecondary vocational
institution, the program is approved by
a recognized State agency for the
approval of public postsecondary
vocational education in lieu of
accreditation.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
§ 668.605
Student warnings.
(a) Events requiring a warning to
students and prospective students.
Beginning on July 1, 2026, the
institution must provide a warning with
respect to a GE program to students and
prospective students for any year for
which the Secretary notifies an
institution that the GE program could
become ineligible under this subpart
based on its final D/E rates or earnings
premium measure for the next award
year for which D/E rates or the earnings
premium measure are calculated for the
GE program.
(b) Subsequent warning. If a student
or prospective student receives a
warning under paragraph (a) of this
section with respect to a GE program,
but does not seek to enroll until more
than 12 months after receiving the
warning, the institution must again
provide the warning to the student or
prospective student, unless, since
providing the initial warning, the
program has passed both the D/E rates
and earnings premium measures for the
two most recent consecutive award
years in which the metrics were
calculated for the program.
(c) Content of warning. The institution
must provide in the warning—
(1) A warning, as specified by the
Secretary in a notice published in the
Federal Register, that—
(i) The program has not passed
standards established by the U.S.
Department of Education based on the
amounts students borrow for enrollment
in the program and their reported
earnings, as applicable; and
(ii) The program could lose access to
Federal grants and loans based on the
next calculated program metrics;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Oct 06, 2023
Jkt 262001
(2) The relevant information to access
the program information website
maintained by the Secretary described
in § 668.43(d);
(3) A statement that the student must
acknowledge having viewed the
warning through the program
information website before the
institution may disburse any title IV,
HEA funds to the student;
(4) A description of the academic and
financial options available to students to
continue their education in another
program at the institution, including
whether the students could transfer
credits earned in the program to another
program at the institution and which
course credits would transfer, in the
event that the program loses eligibility
for title IV, HEA program funds;
(5) An indication of whether, in the
event that the program loses eligibility
for title IV, HEA program funds, the
institution will—
(i) Continue to provide instruction in
the program to allow students to
complete the program; and
(ii) Refund the tuition, fees, and other
required charges paid to the institution
by, or on behalf of, students for
enrollment in the program; and
(6) An explanation of whether, if the
program loses eligibility for title IV,
HEA program funds, the students could
transfer credits earned in the program to
another institution in accordance with
an established articulation agreement or
teach-out plan or agreement.
(d) Alternative languages. In addition
to providing the English-language
warning, the institution must also
provide translations of the Englishlanguage student warning for those
students and prospective students who
have limited proficiency in English.
(e) Delivery to enrolled students. An
institution must provide the warning
required under this section in writing,
by hand delivery, mail, or electronic
means, to each student enrolled in the
program no later than 30 days after the
date of the Secretary’s notice of
determination under § 668.406 and
maintain documentation of its efforts to
provide that warning. The warning must
be the only substantive content
contained in these written
communications.
(f) Delivery to prospective students.
(1) An institution must provide the
warning as required under this section
to each prospective student or to each
third party acting on behalf of the
prospective student at the first contact
PO 00000
Frm 00191
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
70193
about the program between the
institution and the student or the third
party acting on behalf of the student
by—
(i) Hand-delivering the warning as a
separate document to the prospective
student or third party, individually or as
part of a group presentation;
(ii) Sending the warning to the
primary email address used by the
institution for communicating with the
prospective student or third party about
the program, provided that the warning
is the only substantive content in the
email and that the warning is sent by a
different method of delivery if the
institution receives a response that the
email could not be delivered; or
(iii) Providing the warning orally to
the student or third party if the contact
is by telephone.
(2) An institution may not enroll,
register, or enter into a financial
commitment with the prospective
student with respect to the program
earlier than three business days after the
institution delivers the warning as
described in this paragraph (f).
(g) Acknowledgment prior to
enrollment and disbursement. An
institution may not allow a prospective
student seeking title IV, HEA assistance
to sign an enrollment agreement,
complete registration, or make a
financial commitment to the institution,
or disburse title IV, HEA funds to the
student until the student or prospective
student completes the acknowledgment
described in paragraph (c)(3) of this
section.
(h) Discharge claims. The provision of
a student warning or the
acknowledgment described in paragraph
(c)(3) of this section does not mitigate
the institution’s responsibility to
provide accurate information to
students concerning program status, nor
will it be considered as dispositive
evidence against a student’s claim if
applying for a loan discharge.
§ 668.606
Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its
application to any person, act, or
practice is held invalid, the remainder
of this part and subpart, and the
application of this subpart’s provisions
to any other person, act, or practice, will
not be affected thereby.
[FR Doc. 2023–20385 Filed 9–28–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM
10OCR2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70004-70193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20385]
[[Page 70003]]
Vol. 88
Tuesday,
No. 194
October 10, 2023
Part II
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Parts 600 and 668
Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2023 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 70004]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 600 and 668
[Docket ID ED-2023-OPE-0089]
RIN 1840-AD57
Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary establishes and amends regulations related to
gainful employment (GE) to address ongoing concerns about educational
programs designed to prepare students for gainful employment in a
recognized occupation, but that instead leave them with unaffordable
amounts of student loan debt in relation to their earnings, or with no
gain in earnings compared to others with no more than a high school
education. The Secretary separately seeks to enhance transparency by
providing information about financial costs and benefits to students at
nearly all academic programs at postsecondary institutions that are
eligible to participate in title IV of the Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended (HEA).
DATES: These regulations are effective July 1, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Massman. Telephone: (202) 453-
7771. Email: [email protected].
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Purpose of This Regulatory Action
The Federal Government makes significant annual investments under
title IV of the HEA through programs that provide financial assistance
to help students pay for postsecondary education and training. This
includes both Federal grants and Federal loans, with the largest amount
of such aid flowing through Pell Grants and Direct Loans. These
investments in education amount to well over $100 billion in new Pell
Grants and Direct Loans in total made each year.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note that the dollar figure in the text above refers to the
sum of all Pell Grants and Direct Loans made each year. The cost of
Direct Loans, which is the lion's share of this amount, to the
Federal Government is less than the amount disbursed since borrowers
repay, as expanded on below. This final rule affects a small
fraction of the total amount, as detailed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Government's commitment to postsecondary education and
training is well-justified. Postsecondary education and training
generate important benefits both to the students pursuing new knowledge
and skills and to the Nation overall. Higher education increases wages
and lowers unemployment risk,\2\ and leads to myriad non-financial
benefits including better health, job satisfaction, and overall
happiness.\3\ In addition, increasing the number of individuals with
postsecondary education creates social benefits, including productivity
spillovers from a better educated and more flexible workforce,\4\
increased civic participation,\5\ improvements in health and well-being
for the next generation,\6\ and innumerable intangible benefits that
elude quantification. In addition, the improvements in productivity and
earnings lead to increases in tax revenues from higher earnings and
lower rates of reliance on social safety net programs. These downstream
increases in net revenue to the Government can be so large that public
investments in higher education, including those that Congress
established in title IV, HEA, more than pay for themselves.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Barrow, L. & Malamud, O. (2015). Is College a Worthwhile
Investment? Annual Review of Economics, 7(1), 519-555. Card, D.
(1999). The Causal Effect of Education on Earnings. Handbook of
Labor Economics, 3, 1801-1863.
\3\ Oreopoulos, P. & Salvanes, K.G. (2011). Priceless: The
Nonpecuniary Benefits of Schooling. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 25(1), 159-184.
\4\ Moretti, E. (2004). Workers' Education, Spillovers, and
Productivity: Evidence from Plant-Level Production Functions.
American Economic Review, 94(3), 656-690.
\5\ Dee, T.S. (2004). Are There Civic Returns to Education?
Journal of Public Economics, 88(9-10), 1697-1720.
\6\ Currie, J. & Moretti, E. (2003). Mother's Education and the
Intergenerational Transmission of Human Capital: Evidence from
College Openings. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1495-
1532.
\7\ Hendren, N. & Sprung-Keyser, B. (2020). A Unified Welfare
Analysis of Government Policies. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
135(3), 1209-1318.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These benefits are not guaranteed, however. Research has
demonstrated that the returns, especially the gains in earnings
students enjoy as a result of their education, vary dramatically across
institutions and among programs within those institutions.\8\ As we
illustrate in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of this final rule,
even among the same types of programs--that is, among programs with
similar academic levels and fields of study--both the costs and the
outcomes for students differ widely. Most postsecondary programs
provide benefits to students in the form of higher wages that help them
repay any loans they may have obtained to attend the program. But too
many programs fail to increase graduates' wages, having little or even
negative effects on graduates' earnings.\9\ At the same time, too many
programs charge much higher tuition than similar programs with
comparable outcomes, leading students to borrow much more than they
would have needed had they chosen a more affordable program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Hoxby, C.M. (2019). The Productivity of U.S. Postsecondary
Institutions. In Productivity in Higher Education, Hoxby, C.M. &
Stange, K.M. (eds). University of Chicago Press. Lovenheim, M. &
Smith, J. (2023). Returns to Different Postsecondary Investments:
Institution Type, Academic Programs, and Credentials. In Handbook of
the Economics of Education Volume 6, Hanushek, E., Woessmann, E. &
Machin, S. (eds). New Holland.
\9\ Cellini, S. & Turner, N. (2018). Gainfully Employed?
Assessing the Employment and Earnings of For-Profit College Students
Using Administrative Data. Journal of Human Resources, 54(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While increased borrowing is indicative of higher education costs-
of-attendance, financing the costs of postsecondary education and
training with Federal student loans creates significant risk for
borrowers and the Federal Government (as well as taxpayers). In
particular, if students' earnings after college are low, then they are
likely to face difficulty in repaying their loans and will be more
likely to default. The associated penalties and delays in repayment
make the student loan more costly to repay, and, by damaging the
borrower's credit, may also increase costs of other borrowing
considerably.\10\ From the Federal Government's perspective, if
borrowers earn less, then they are also entitled to repay less of their
loans under Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans and can have their
loans forgiven after preset amounts of time in repayment. And if
borrowers default on a loan, they may end up repaying less than they
borrowed depending on the success of various collections tools
available to the Government. As a result, low labor market earnings and
low earnings relative to debt both drive up the costs, to both the
borrower and taxpayers, of
[[Page 70005]]
postsecondary investments financed with student loans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For example, a 2023 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
analysis suggests that a default on a borrower's credit record could
lower their credit score by about 50 points, which might result in
an additional cost of $1,700 on a typical auto loan due to less
favorable interest terms. Gibbs, Christa (2023). Initial Fresh Start
Program Changes Followed by Increased Credit Scores for Affected
Student Loan Borrowers. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/initial-fresh-start-program-changes-followed-by-increased-credit-scores-for-affected-borrowers/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With college tuition consistently rising faster than inflation, and
given the growing necessity of a postsecondary credential to compete in
today's economy, it is critical for students, families, and taxpayers
alike to have accurate and transparent information about the possible
financial consequences of their postsecondary program options.
Providing information on the typical earnings outcomes, borrowing
amounts, costs of attendance, and sources of financial aid--and
providing it directly to prospective students in a salient way at a key
moment in their decision-making process--would help students make more
informed choices. The same information will also allow taxpayers and
college stakeholders to better assess whether public and private
resources are being effectively used. For many students, and for many
stakeholders, these financial considerations would, appropriately, be
just one of many factors used in deciding whether and where to enroll.
But as noted throughout this final rule including the RIA, it is clear
that both prospective students and the population in general consider
these financial factors as among the most important in assessing
postsecondary education performance.
For programs that consistently produce graduates with very low
earnings, or with earnings that are too low to repay the amount the
typical graduate borrows to complete a credential, additional measures
are needed to protect students from financial harm. Making information
available has been shown to improve consequential financial choices
across a variety of settings. But it has also been shown to be a
limited remedy, especially for more vulnerable populations who may
struggle to access the information, or who have less support in
interpreting and acting upon the relevant information.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Baker, Dominique J., Cellini, Stephanie Riegg, Scott-
Clayton, Judith & Turner, Lesley J. (2021). Why Information Alone Is
Not Enough to Improve Higher Education Outcomes. The Brookings
Institution (www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2021/12/14/why-information-alone-is-not-enough-to-improve-higher-education-outcomes/). Steffel, Mary, Kramer II, Dennis A., McHugh, Walter &
Ducoff, Nick (2019). Information Disclosure and College Choice. The
Brookings Institution (www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/ES-11.23.20-Steffel-et-al-1.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address these issues, the Department establishes subparts Q and
S of part 668, and makes supporting amendments to Sec. Sec. 600.10,
600.21, 668.2, 668.13, 668.43, and 668.91.
(1) In subpart Q, we establish a financial value transparency
framework. That framework will increase the quality and availability of
information provided directly to students about the costs, sources of
financial aid, and outcomes of students enrolled in all eligible
programs. In part, the transparency framework establishes measures of
enhanced earnings and affordable debt--more specifically, the earnings
premium (EP measure) that typical program graduates experience relative
to the earnings of typical high school graduates, as well as the debt
service burden (debt-to-earnings ratio or D/E rates measure) for
typical graduates. It further establishes performance benchmarks for
each measure, denoting a threshold level of performance below which the
program may have adverse financial consequences to students. This
information will be made available to all students via a program
information website maintained by the Department and described in
amended Sec. 668.43. For programs that do not meet the performance
benchmarks for the D/E rates measure, prospective students will be
required to acknowledge having viewed these disclosures before entering
into enrollment agreements with an institution. Further, the
Department's program information website will provide the public,
taxpayers, and the Government with relevant information with which they
may act to better safeguard the Federal investment in these programs.
The transparency framework will also provide institutions with
meaningful information that they can use to compare their performance
to other institutions and improve student outcomes in these programs.
(2) In subpart S, we establish an accountability and eligibility
framework for gainful employment programs. This GE program
accountability framework is specific to educational programs that, as a
statutory condition of eligibility to participate in title IV, HEA, are
required to provide training that prepares students for gainful
employment in a recognized occupation or profession (GE programs). GE
programs include nearly all educational programs at for-profit
institutions of higher education, as well as non-degree programs at
public and private nonprofit institutions such as community colleges.
The GE program eligibility framework will use the same earnings premium
and debt-burden measures from the transparency framework to determine
whether a GE program remains eligible for title IV, HEA participation.
The GE eligibility criteria define what it means to prepare students
for gainful employment in a recognized occupation, and they tie program
eligibility to whether GE programs provide education and training to
their title IV, HEA students that lead to earnings beyond those of high
school graduates and sufficient to allow students to repay their
student loans. GE programs that fail the same measure in any two out of
three consecutive years for which the measure is calculated will not be
eligible to participate in title IV, HEA programs.
The Department has previously issued regulations on these issues
three times. We refer to those regulatory actions as the 2011 Prior
Rule (76 FR 34385), the 2014 Prior Rule (79 FR 64889), and the 2019
Prior Rule (84 FR 31392), which rescinded the 2014 Prior Rule. For a
detailed discussion of the history of these regulations, please see the
Background section of the notice of proposed rulemaking that was
published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2023 (88 FR 32300) (NPRM).
This final rule departs from the 2019 Prior Rule and partly reinstates
provisions of the 2014 Prior Rule, but this final rule also departs in
certain respects from the 2014 Prior Rule to improve the regulations in
light of new data and current circumstances, as discussed in the
NPRM.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 88 FR 32300, 32306 (May 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The financial value transparency framework covers all programs that
participate in the title IV, HEA programs, and it will dramatically
enhance the quality of information available to all students so that
they may better assess the financial consequences of their education
choices. As explained in the NPRM and elaborated below, the framework
will improve on the information currently available to students by
generating program-level information on cost of attendance and
available aid for all types of students and by ensuring the information
is delivered to students. The acknowledgment requirements ensure this
information is viewed before students enroll when performance measures
indicate a heightened risk of adverse borrowing outcomes for students.
With respect to GE programs, the Department remains concerned about
the same problems that motivated our 2011 and 2014 Prior Rules. These
included the growth in student loan debt generally, and especially
increased borrowing at private for-profit colleges, increasingly high
rates of default, higher costs, and lawsuits and investigations into
the deceptive practices of many institutions.
[[Page 70006]]
Overall, the amount of outstanding student loan debt is even higher
than it was at the time of the 2014 Prior Rule. Then we cited a total
portfolio of $1,096.5 billion. It is now 49 percent larger--at $1,634
billion outstanding. The number of individuals with outstanding student
loans is also 3.5 million higher.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid (2023).
Federal Student Aid Portfolio Summary (data set). National Student
Loan Data System (NSLDS) (https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/fsawg/datacenter/library/PortfolioSummary.xls).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2011 and 2014 rules were issued during a time of growth at
private for-profit colleges when the Department was concerned about the
effects of such growth. While the sector is not currently growing at
the rates it did at that time, its 12-month full-time-equivalent
enrollment in 2020-21 was above its levels in 2017-18.\14\ During those
years, enrollment in private for-profit colleges grew 5 percent even as
public and private nonprofit institutions saw a 7 percent decline.
Similarly, the share of title IV, HEA funds going to private for-profit
colleges in 2020-21 was at the same level as in 2016-17.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics (2021). Table 8. Twelve-month full-time-
equivalent enrollment at Title IV institutions, by student level,
level and control of institution: United States, 2020-21. IPEDS Data
Explorer (https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Search?query=&query2=&resultType=all&page=1&sortBy=date_desc&overlayTableId=32468). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics (2018). Table 8. Twelve-month full-time-
equivalent enrollment at Title IV institutions, by student level,
level and control of institution: United States, 2017-18. IPEDS Data
Explorer (https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Search?query=&query2=&resultType=all&page=1&sortBy=date_desc&overlayTableId=25212).
\15\ U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid (2023).
2022-2023 Grant and Loan Volume by School Type (data set). FSA Data
Center (https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/fsawg/datacenter/library/SummarybySchoolType.xls).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan usage at private for-profit colleges also remains high. In the
2014 Prior Rule we noted concerns that the borrowing rate in 2011-12
among less-than-two-year institutions was 60 percent at private for-
profit institutions versus 10 percent at public institutions.\16\ Data
from 2019-20 show that 63 percent of students in less-than-two-year
private for-profit institutions took out loans compared to 18 percent
of those at public colleges, though the estimate for public colleges
has a high standard error.\17\ In fact, the borrowing rate at two-year
and less-than-two-year private for-profit colleges in 2019-20 was
higher than in 2015-2016. And among two-year for-profit colleges it
even exceeds the rates in 2011-12.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ U.S. Department of Education (2014). Program Integrity:
Gainful Employment. 79 FR 65033, October 31, 2014. Federal Register,
34 CFR parts 600 and 668 (Docket ID ED-2014-OPE-0039) (https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2014-25594/p-2324).
\17\ Cameron, M., Johnson, R., Lacy, T.A., Wu, J., Siegel, P.,
Holley, J., Wine, J. & RTI International (2023). Table A-1. Selected
financial aid receipt: Percentage of undergraduates receiving
selected types of financial aid. In 2019-20 National Postsecondary
Student Aid Study (NPSAS:20) First Look at Student Financial Aid
Estimates for 2019-20 (NCES 2023-466). U.S. Department of Education
(https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2023/2023466.pdf).
\18\ Compare the previous citation with Radwin, D., Wine, J.,
Siegel, P., Bryan, M. & RTI International (2013). Table 1.
Percentage of undergraduates receiving selected types of financial
aid, by type of institution, attendance pattern, dependency status,
and income level: 2011-12. In 2011-12 National Postsecondary Student
Aid Study (NPSAS:12) Student Financial Aid Estimates for 2011-12
(NCES 2013-165). U.S. Department of Education (https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013165.pdf). Radwin, D., Conzelmann, J. G., Nunnery, A.,
Lacy, T. A., Wu, J., Lew, S., Wine, J., Siegel, P. & RTI
International (2018). Table 1. Percentage of undergraduates
receiving selected types of financial aid, by control and level of
institution, attendance pattern, dependency status, and income
level: 2015-16. In 2015-16 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study
(NPSAS:16) Student Financial Aid Estimates for 2015-16 First Look
(NCES 2018466). National Center for Education Statistics (https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018466.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issues with default rates also did not abate between 2014 and the
national pause on student loan payments and interest in 2020 due to the
COVID-19 national emergency. From 2015 to 2019 there were still more
than 1 million new Direct Loan defaults a year. And the number of new
Direct Loan defaults in the 2019 fiscal year was higher than in
2015.\19\ The official cohort default rates did see slight declines
from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2017 (the last cohort before the
pause would affect results). But the decline in the overall rate was
nearly double what it was at private for-profit colleges (a reduction
of 2.1 percentage points versus 1.1 percentage points).\20\ And this is
despite the closure of large for-profit colleges with poor track
records, such as ITT Technical Institute and Corinthian Colleges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ U.S. Department of Education (Sept. 14, 2023). Direct Loans
Entering Default. National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) (https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/DLEnteringDefaults.xls).
\20\ Federal Student Aid Office, U.S. Department of Education
(2016). National Student Loan Default Rates from its 2016 Official
FY2013 Cohort Default Rate Briefing (https://fsapartners.ed.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/eannouncements/2016OfficialFY2013CDRBriefing.pdf). Federal Student Aid Office, U.S.
Department of Education (2020). FY 2017 Official National Cohort
Default Rates with Prior Year Comparison and Total Dollars as of the
Date of Default and Repayment. In 2020 Cohort Default Rate National
Briefing for FY2017 (https://fsapartners.ed.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/2020-09/093020CDRNationalBriefingFY17Attach_0.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding lawsuits and investigations, the Department notes that
these actions still continue today. Just last year the California
Department of Justice won its case against Ashford University, and the
Secretary has concluded substantial misrepresentations brought to light
in that case continued until 2020.\21\ The U.S. Department of Justice
has also continued to settle cases involving for-profit colleges.\22\
Other State attorneys general or city officials have also reached
settlements with for-profit institutions over allegations about the
same type of behavior identified by the Department in the 2014 rule,
though these settlements did not come with an admission of
wrongdoing.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney
General (Mar. 7, 2022). Attorney General Bonta: Ashford University
Must Pay $22 Million in Penalties for Defrauding California Students
(https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-ashford-university-must-pay-22-million-penalties). U.S. Department
of Education (Aug. 30, 2023). Biden-Harris Administration Approves
$72 Million in Borrower Defense Discharges for over 2,300 Borrowers
Who Attended Ashford University (https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/biden-harris-administration-approves-72-million-borrower-defense-discharges-over-2300-borrowers-who-attended-ashford-university).
\22\ U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Louisiana (June
23, 2017). School Owner and CEO Convicted of Federal Financial Aid
Fraud Offenses and Money Laundering. U.S. Department of Justice
(https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdla/pr/school-owner-and-ceo-convicted-federal-financial-aid-fraud-offenses-and-money). U.S.
Attorney's Office, District of Connecticut (May 27, 2022). School
and Owner Pay Over $1 Million to Resolve Allegations of Attempts to
Improperly Influence the School's Student Loan Default Rate. U.S.
Department of Justice (https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/school-and-owner-pay-over-1-million-resolve-allegations-attempts-improperly-influence).
\23\ Office of Attorney General Maura Healey (Aug. 8, 2018).
American Military University Pays $270,000 for Alleged Failure to
Disclose Job Prospects, High-Pressure Enrollment Tactics. Mass.gov
(https://www.mass.gov/news/american-military-university-pays-270000-for-alleged-failure-to-disclose-job-prospects-high-pressure-enrollment-tactics). Department of Consumer and Worker Protection
(Oct. 3, 2022). Department of Consumer and Worker Protection Settles
With ASA College for Deceptive Advertising Targeting Immigrants and
Other Vulnerable New Yorkers. NYC.gov (https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/media/pr100322-DCWP-Settles-With-ASA-College-for-Deceptive-Advertising.page).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Department's data and analyses, which are
presented in the RIA of this final rule,\24\ GE programs account for a
disproportionate share of students who complete programs with very low
earnings and unmanageable debt. The expansion of IDR plans for Federal
student loans, which has risen since the 2014 Prior Rule was released,
partially shields borrowers from these risks. But such after-the-fact
protections do not address underlying program failures to prepare
students for gainful employment in the first place, and they shift the
risks of nonpayment of loans from students with poor labor market
outcomes and high debt to taxpayers.
[[Page 70007]]
The reasons for the departure from the 2019 rescission are discussed in
detail in the NPRM of the rule, with detail on particular points
discussed further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Tables 4.4, 4.5, 4.8, and 4.9 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the HEA differentiation between career training (GE)
programs and other eligible programs, through statutory language that
defines title IV-eligible career training programs as those that
prepare students for gainful employment, the Department has different
responsibilities with respect to GE programs and different tools
available in administering the title IV, HEA programs. For these
programs, where labor market outcomes are central to their mission, the
Department establishes a clear and administrable GE program
accountability framework based on the EP and D/E measures, which the
Department will use to evaluate what it means to prepare students for
gainful employment in a recognized occupation and whether a GE program
is eligible to participate in title IV, HEA.
While the financial value transparency framework and the GE program
accountability framework are both designed to improve student financial
outcomes, they differ in scope and approach, derive from the
Department's exercise of different regulatory authorities. The two
frameworks are intended to function independently, and their respective
components are intended to be severable. Elsewhere we discuss the
complementary nature of the two frameworks as well as their
severability,\25\ and we address the Department's authority to take
action in the next section. In subsequent sections we explain our
reasoning and the evidence relevant to the positions that we adopt, and
we identify a number of constructive public comments that, upon
reflection, have convinced the Department to modify certain proposals
made in the NPRM. But our core conclusions remain the same. Considering
the promise of postsecondary education and training in its many forms
alongside the Federal Government's investment therein and all
applicable law, the Department adopts this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See the NPRM, 88 FR 32300, 32341 (May 19, 2023), for a
detailed discussion of how these regulations are intended to be
severable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority for This Regulatory Action
To address the need for regulatory action, the Department amends
Sec. Sec. 600.10, 600.21, 668.2, 668.13, 668.43, and 668.91, and
establishes subparts Q and S of part 668.
The Department's authority to establish the financial value
transparency framework and the GE program accountability framework is
derived primarily from: first, the Secretary's generally applicable
rulemaking authority, which includes but is not limited to provisions
regarding data collection and dissemination; second, authorizations and
directives within title IV of the HEA regarding the collection and
dissemination of potentially useful information about higher education
programs, as well as provisions regarding institutional eligibility to
benefit from title IV; and third, the further provisions within title
IV, HEA that address the eligibility of GE programs.
As for general and crosscutting rulemaking authority, section 410
of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) grants the Secretary
authority to make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend rules and
regulations governing the manner of operation of, and governing the
applicable programs administered by, the Department.\26\ This authority
includes the power to promulgate regulations relating to programs that
we administer, such as the title IV, HEA programs that provide Federal
loans, grants, and other aid to students. Moreover, section 414 of the
Department of Education Organization Act (DEOA) authorizes the
Secretary to prescribe those rules and regulations that the Secretary
determines necessary or appropriate to administer and manage the
functions of the Secretary or the Department.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3.
\27\ 20 U.S.C. 3474.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 431 of GEPA grants the Secretary additional authority to
require institutions to make data available to the public about the
performance of their programs and about students enrolled in those
programs. That section directs the Secretary to collect data and
information on applicable programs for the purpose of obtaining
objective measurements of the effectiveness of such programs in
achieving their intended purposes, and also to inform the public about
federally supported education programs.\28\ This provision lends
additional support to the reporting requirements and the Department's
program information website, which will enable the Department to
collect data and information for the purpose of developing objective
measures of program performance, not only for the Department's use in
evaluating programs but also to inform students, their families,
institutions, and others about those federally supported programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 20 U.S.C. 1231a(2)-(3). ``Applicable program'' means any
program for which the Secretary or the Department has administrative
responsibility as provided by law or by delegation of authority
pursuant to law. 20 U.S.C. 1221(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for provisions within title IV, HEA, several of them address the
effective delivery of information about postsecondary education
programs. For example, section 131 of the Higher Education Act of 1965,
as amended (HEA), provides that the Department's websites should
include information regarding higher education programs, including
college planning and student financial aid,\29\ the cost of higher
education in general, and the cost of attendance with respect to all
institutions of higher education participating in title IV, HEA
programs.\30\ Those authorizations and directives expand on more
traditional methods of delivering important information to students,
prospective students, and others, including within or alongside
application forms or promissory notes for which acknowledgments by
signatories are typical and longstanding.\31\ Educational institutions
have been distributing information to students at the direction of the
Department and in accord with the applicable statutes for decades.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See, for example, 20 U.S.C. 1015(e).
\30\ 20 U.S.C. 1015(a)(3), (b), (c)(5), (e), (h). See also
section 111 of the Higher Education Opportunity Act, 20 U.S.C.
1015a, which authorizes the College Navigator website and successor
websites.
\31\ See, for example, 20 U.S.C. 1082(m), regarding common
application forms and promissory notes or master promissory notes.
See also 34 CFR 685.304(a)(3), regarding Direct Loan counseling and
acknowledgments.
\32\ A compilation of the current and previous editions of the
Federal Student Aid Handbook, which includes detailed discussion of
consumer information and school reporting and notification
requirements, is posted at https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/fsa-handbook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GE program accountability framework also is supported by the
Department's statutory responsibilities to observe eligibility limits
in the HEA. Section 498 of the HEA requires institutions to establish
eligibility to provide title IV, HEA funds to their students. Eligible
institutions must also meet program eligibility requirements for
students in those programs to receive title IV, HEA assistance.
One type of program for which certain categories of institutions
must establish program-level eligibility is, in the words of section
101 and section 102 of the HEA, a ``program of training to prepare
students for gainful employment in a
[[Page 70008]]
recognized occupation.'' \33\ Section 481 of the HEA articulates this
same requirement by defining, in part, an ``eligible program'' as a
``program of training to prepare students for gainful employment in a
recognized profession.'' \34\ The HEA does not more specifically define
``program of training to prepare,'' ``gainful employment,''
``recognized occupation,'' or ``recognized profession'' for purposes of
determining the eligibility of GE programs for participation in title
IV, HEA. The Secretary and the Department have a legal duty to
interpret, implement, and apply those terms in order to observe the
statutory eligibility limits in the HEA. In the section-by-section
discussion in the NPRM, we explained further the Department's
interpretation of the GE statutory provisions and how those provisions
should be implemented and applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 20 U.S.C. 1001(b)(1); 20 U.S.C. 1002(b)(1)(A)(i),
(c)(1)(A).
\34\ 20 U.S.C. 1088(b)(1)(A)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statutory eligibility criteria for GE programs are one part of
the foundation of authority for warnings from institutions to
prospective and enrolled GE students. In the GE context, the Department
has not only a statutory basis for pursuing the effective dissemination
of information to students about a range of GE program attributes and
performance metrics,\35\ but also the authority to use certain metrics
to determine that an institution's program is not eligible to benefit,
as a GE program, from title IV, HEA assistance. When an institution's
program is at risk of losing eligibility based on a given metric, the
Department may then require the institution that operates the at-risk
program to alert prospective and enrolled students that they may not be
able to receive title IV, HEA assistance for enrollment in the program
in future years. Without a direct communication from the institution to
prospective and enrolled students, the students may lack information
critical to their program enrollment decisions contrary to the text,
purpose, and traditional understandings of the relevant statutes as
described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Ass'n of Priv. Sector Colleges & Universities v.
Duncan, 110 F. Supp. 3d 176, 198-200 (D.D.C. 2015) (recognizing
statutory authority to require institutions to disclose certain
information about GE programs to prospective and enrolled GE
students), aff'd, 640 F. App'x 5, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (per curiam)
(unpublished) (indicating that the plaintiff's challenge to the GE
disclosure provisions was abandoned on appeal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above authorities collectively empower the Secretary to
promulgate regulations to (1) require institutions to report
information about their programs to the Secretary; (2) require
prospective students, with respect to certificate programs and graduate
degree programs that do not meet certain financial value measures
established by the Department, to acknowledge having viewed the
information on the Department's program information website before
entering into an enrollment agreement; (3) establish measures to
determine the eligibility of GE programs for participation in title IV,
HEA; and (4) require institutions to provide warnings to students and
prospective students with respect to GE programs that may lose their
title IV, HEA eligibility in the next year, and require the students to
acknowledge having viewed the warning through the Department's program
information website. We provide additional detail on these provisions
in the discussions below.
Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action
As discussed under ``Purpose of This Regulatory Action,'' these
regulations establish a financial value transparency framework and a GE
program accountability framework.
Through this regulatory action, the Department establishes the
following:
(1) In subpart Q, a financial value transparency framework that
will increase the quality and availability of information provided
directly to students about the costs, sources of financial aid, and
outcomes of students enrolled in all title IV, HEA eligible programs.
As part of this framework, we establish a measure of the earnings
premium that typical program graduates experience relative to the
earnings of typical high school graduates. As part of this framework,
we also establish a mechanism for measuring the debt service burden for
typical graduates. Further, we establish performance benchmarks for
each measure, denoting a threshold level of performance below which
students' enrollment in the program may have adverse financial
consequences. This information will be made available via a program
information website maintained by the Department, and, for certificate
programs and graduate degree programs with poor outcomes under the
debt-burden measures, prospective students will be required to
acknowledge viewing this information before entering into enrollment
agreements with an institution. Further, through the Department's
program information website, we will provide the public, taxpayers, and
the Government with relevant information which they can use to better
safeguard the Federal investment in these programs. Finally, the
financial value transparency framework will provide institutions with
meaningful information that they can use to compare the performance of
the programs to that of other institutions and improve student outcomes
in these programs. For a detailed discussion of the financial
transparency framework, see the ``Financial Value Transparency
Framework'' section of the NPRM.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 88 FR 32300, 32325 (May 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) In subpart S, we create an accountability framework for career
training programs (also referred to as gainful employment programs or
GE programs) that uses the same earnings premium and debt-burden
measures as subpart Q to determine whether a GE program remains
eligible for participation in title IV, HEA. The GE eligibility
criteria are used to identify those programs that prepare students for
gainful employment in a recognized occupation, as that language is used
in the HEA, and they tie program eligibility to whether GE programs
provide education and training to their title IV, HEA students that
lead to earnings beyond those of high school graduates and sufficient
to allow students to repay their student loans. GE programs that fail
the same measure in any two out of three consecutive years for which
the measure is calculated will lose eligibility for participation in
title IV, HEA programs. Relatedly, for GE programs that may lose their
title IV, HEA eligibility in the next year, institutions must provide
warnings to those programs' enrolled and prospective students, and
those students must acknowledge having viewed the warning through the
Department's program information website before certain specified
events occur, including the signing of an enrollment agreement or the
disbursement of title IV funds. For a detailed discussion of the GE
program accountability framework, see the ``Gainful Employment
Criteria'' section of the NPRM.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 88 FR 32300, 32343 (May 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the final regulations adopt the following changes.
Amend Sec. 600.10 to require an institution seeking to
establish the eligibility of a GE program to add the program to its
application.
Amend Sec. 600.21 to require an institution to notify the
Secretary within 10 days of any update to information included in the
GE program's certification.
Amend Sec. 668.2 to define certain terminology used in
subparts Q and S, including ``annual debt-to-earnings rate,''
``classification of instructional
[[Page 70009]]
programs (CIP) code,'' ``cohort period,'' ``credential level,'' ``debt-
to-earnings rates (D/E rates),'' ``discretionary debt-to-earnings
rates,'' ``earnings premium,'' ``earnings threshold,'' ``eligible non-
GE program,'' ``Federal agency with earnings data,'' ``gainful
employment program (GE program),'' ``institutional grants and
scholarships,'' ``length of the program,'' ``poverty guideline,''
``prospective student,'' ``student,'' and ``substantially similar
program.''
Amend Sec. 668.43 to establish a Department website with
program-level financial information, and to require institutions to
inform a prospective student how to access that website before the
student enrolls, registers, or makes a financial commitment to the
institution.
Amend Sec. 668.91 to provide that a hearing official must
terminate the eligibility of a GE program that fails to meet the GE
program accountability metrics established in this rule, unless the
hearing official concludes that the Secretary erred in the calculation.
Add Sec. 668.401 to identify the scope and purpose of the
newly established financial value transparency regulations in subpart
Q.
Add Sec. 668.402 to provide a framework for the Secretary
to determine whether a program leads to high debt burden or low
earnings, including establishing annual and discretionary D/E rate
metrics and associated outcomes, and establishing an earnings premium
metric and associated outcomes.
Add Sec. 668.403 to establish a methodology to calculate
annual and discretionary D/E rates, including parameters to determine
annual loan payment, annual earnings, loan debt, and assessed charges,
as well as to provide exclusions, and specify when D/E rates will not
be calculated.
Add a new Sec. 668.404 to establish a methodology to
calculate a program's earnings premium measure, including parameters to
determine median annual earnings, as well as to provide exclusions, and
specify when the earnings threshold measure will not be calculated.
Add Sec. 668.405 to establish a process by which the
Secretary will obtain administrative and earnings data to issue D/E
rates and the earnings premium measure.
Add Sec. 668.406 to require the Secretary to notify
institutions of their financial value transparency metrics and
outcomes.
Add Sec. 668.407 to require current and prospective
students to acknowledge having seen the information on the website
maintained by the Secretary if a program has failed the D/E rates
measure, to specify the content and delivery parameters of such
acknowledgments, and to require that students must provide the
acknowledgment before entering an enrollment agreement with an
institution.
Add Sec. 668.408 to establish institutional reporting
requirements for students who enroll in, complete, or withdraw from a
program and to define the timeframe for institutions to report this
information.
Add Sec. 668.409 to establish severability protections
ensuring that if any provision in subpart Q is held invalid, the
remaining provisions of that subpart and other subparts would continue
to apply.
Add Sec. 668.601 to identify the scope and purpose of
newly established GE regulations under subpart S.
Add Sec. 668.602 to establish criteria for the Secretary
to determine whether a GE program prepares students for gainful
employment in a recognized occupation.
Add Sec. 668.603 to define the conditions under which a
failing GE program would lose title IV, HEA eligibility, to provide the
opportunity for an institution to appeal a loss of eligibility solely
on the basis of a miscalculated D/E rate or earnings premium, and to
establish a period of ineligibility for failing GE programs that lose
eligibility or voluntarily discontinue eligibility.
Add Sec. 668.604 to require institutions to provide the
Department with transitional certifications, as well as to certify,
when seeking recertification or the approval of a new or modified GE
program, that each eligible GE program offered by the institution is
included in the institution's recognized accreditation or, if the
institution is a public postsecondary vocational institution, that the
program is approved by a recognized State agency.
Add Sec. 668.605 to require warnings to current and
prospective students if a GE program is at risk of a loss of title IV,
HEA eligibility, to specify the content and delivery requirements for
such warnings, and to provide that students must acknowledge having
seen the warning before the institution may disburse any title IV, HEA
funds.
Add Sec. 668.606 to establish severability protections
ensuring that if any GE provision under subpart S is held invalid, the
remaining provisions of that subpart and of other subparts would
continue to apply.
Summary of the Costs and Benefits
The Department estimates that the final regulations will generate
benefits to students, postsecondary institutions, and the Federal
Government that exceed the costs. The Department also estimates
substantial transfers, primarily in the form of title IV, HEA aid
shifting between students, postsecondary institutions, and the Federal
Government, generating a net budget savings for the Federal Government.
Net benefits are created primarily by shifting students from low-
financial-value to high-financial-value programs or, in some cases,
away from low-financial-value postsecondary programs to non-enrollment.
These shifts would be due to improved and standardized market
information about all postsecondary programs that would facilitate
better decision making by current and prospective students and their
families; the public, taxpayers, and the Government; and institutions.
Furthermore, the GE program accountability framework will improve the
quality of student options by directly eliminating the ability of low-
financial-value GE programs to receive title IV, HEA funds. This
enrollment shift and improvement in program quality will result in
higher earnings for students, which will generate additional tax
revenue for Federal, State, and local governments. Students will also
benefit from lower accumulated debt and lower risk of default.
The primary costs of the final regulations related to the financial
value transparency and GE accountability requirements are the
additional reporting required by institutions and the time for students
to acknowledge having seen the program information website. The final
regulations may also result in some students at failing programs
deciding to end their educational pursuits, even if they would benefit
from re-enrollment. See ``Discussion of Costs, Benefits, and
Transfers'' in the RIA in this document for a more complete discussion
of the costs and benefits of the regulations.
The NPRM and Public Comment
The NPRM included proposed regulations on five topics--Financial
Value Transparency and Gainful Employment, Financial Responsibility,
Administrative Capability, Certification Procedures, and Ability to
Benefit. These final regulations contain only provisions on Financial
Value Transparency and GE. We will publish another final rule with the
remaining four topics at a later date. The later rule will include
summaries and responses
[[Page 70010]]
to comments that made some references to the GE program accountability
framework but are primarily concerned with the financial
responsibility, administrative capability, or certification procedures
sections.
In response to our invitation in the NPRM, 7,583 parties submitted
comments on the proposed regulations. While the majority of respondents
commented on the provisions we address in this final rule, the number
includes all who commented on any of the five topics addressed in the
NPRM.
In the NPRM, we discussed the background of the regulations,\38\
the relevant data available,\39\ and the key regulatory changes that
the Department was proposing,\40\ including the changes from the 2019
Prior Rule currently in effect, and the differences between the NPRM's
proposal and the now-rescinded 2014 Prior Rule. Terms used but not
defined in this document have the meanings set forth in the NPRM. The
final regulations contain a number of changes from the NPRM. We fully
explain the changes in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of
the preamble that follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 88 FR 32300, 32306 (May 19, 2023).
\39\ 88 FR 32300, 32392 (May 19, 2023).
\40\ 88 FR 32300, 32317 (May 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We discuss substantive issues under the sections of the proposed
regulations to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address
technical or other minor changes or recommendations that are out of the
scope of this regulatory action or that would require statutory
changes.
Analysis of Public Comments and Changes: Analysis of the comments
and of any changes in the regulations since publication of the NPRM
follows.
General
Rulemaking Process
Comments: Several commenters asked the Department to extend the
public comment period an additional 30 days. These commenters contended
that, given the length of the NPRM, they needed more time to review it
if they were to provide informed comment. The commenters also observed
that Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 cite 60 days as the recommended
length for public comment.
Discussion: The Department believes the public comment period was
sufficient for commenters to review and provide meaningful feedback on
the NPRM. We note that the public comment period for the 2019 Prior
Rule also was 30 days.\41\ In response to the NPRM we received comments
from more than 7,500 individuals and entities, including many detailed
and lengthy comments. Those comments have helped the Department
identify many areas for improvements and clarification that result in
an improved final rule. Moreover, the negotiated rulemaking process,
including multiple negotiating sessions, provided a significant
additional opportunity for public engagement and feedback that exceeds
what is typically available in notice-and-comment rulemaking outside
the HEA's statutory framework. The Department began the rulemaking
process by inviting public input through a series of public hearings in
June 2021. We received more than 5,300 public comments as part of the
public hearing process. After the hearings, the Department sought non-
Federal negotiators for the negotiated rulemaking committee who
represented constituencies that would be affected by our rules. As part
of these non-Federal negotiators' work on the rulemaking committee, the
Department asked that they reach out to the broader constituencies for
feedback during the negotiation process. During each of the three
negotiated rulemaking sessions, we provided opportunities for the
public to comment, including in response to draft regulatory text,
which was available prior to the second and third sessions. The
Department and the non-Federal negotiators considered those comments to
inform further discussion at the negotiating sessions, and we used the
information when preparing our proposed rule. The Executive orders
recommend an appropriate period for public comment, but they do not
require more than 30 days, nor do their recommendations account for the
HEA's negotiated rulemaking requirements, which the Department followed
here as described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See 83 FR 40167, 40168 (Aug. 14, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters asserted that only two days of the
negotiated rulemaking process were specifically devoted to a discussion
of the proposed GE regulations, which they contended was not adequate
time.
Discussion: The Department disagrees. There were multiple
opportunities throughout the rulemaking process for people to submit
comments on the proposed GE regulations. We held public hearings to
obtain initial public input. We also included daily public comment
periods during three weeks of negotiation sessions and devoted two days
to discuss the topic exclusively. Non-Federal negotiators solicited
feedback from their constituents on our proposals during and between
negotiation sessions. Finally, we provided the public with a 30-day
period to comment on the NPRM.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters believed that the Department is rushing
the implementation of the GE regulations. These commenters argued that
programs need more time to comply with these new rules.
Discussion: The Department disagrees with the commenters who
believe that there is not adequate time to comply with the new GE
regulations. The Department gave notice of its intent to regulate in
the Spring 2021 Unified Agenda. We conducted hearings to obtain public
input and held negotiated rulemaking sessions in the Spring of 2022
where the Department's distributed plans for the rule and provided
detailed data on the projected outcomes of GE programs. Accordingly, we
believe there has been, and will continue to be prior to the effective
date, ample time for institutions to take the necessary steps to be
able to meet their reporting obligations under the final rule. In
addition, we note that the lengthy period beginning with the Spring
2021 Unified Agenda, taken together with the transition period built
into the GE program accountability framework, will further allow
institutions to take steps to improve their programs' outcomes after
the regulation takes effect. Adding more time would further delay the
effective date of the GE regulations and would unnecessarily increase
the likelihood that students would continue to invest their time and
money in postsecondary programs that do not meet the minimum standards
of these regulations. The Department believes that we must implement
these rules as quickly as possible to protect students and taxpayers,
and that there is enough time for programs to comply.
Changes: None.
Statutory Authority; Other General Legal Support
Comments: Some commenters acknowledged that the Department has
authority to implement the financial value transparency framework.
Discussion: We agree with these commenters that the Department has
well established authority to implement the financial value
transparency framework. As discussed in more detail under ``Authority
for this Regulatory Action'' in this document, this framework is
supported in principal part by the Secretary's generally applicable
rulemaking authority, which includes provisions regarding data
collection and dissemination, and which applies in part to title IV of
the
[[Page 70011]]
HEA, as well as authorizations and directives within title IV of the
HEA regarding the collection and dissemination of potentially useful
information about higher education programs.
Comments: Several commenters asserted that the proposed GE program
accountability framework exceeds the Department's statutory authority.
Some commenters argued that the description of GE programs in the HEA--
that those programs must prepare students for gainful employment in
recognized occupations--does not provide clear congressional intent to
support the eligibility requirements in the proposed regulations. Some
of these commenters contended that the HEA does not require the
Department to establish a mathematical framework to determine when a
program adequately prepares students for gainful employment in a
recognized occupation, nor provide any explicit congressional
authorization to do so. Similarly, some commenters asserted that the GE
provisions in the HEA are too vague and ambiguous to support an
eligibility framework based on student outcomes. Some commenters said
the litigation addressing prior GE rules never identified clear
congressional authorization for the Department to establish an
eligibility framework for GE programs. Commenters also asserted that
the variations in the prior and proposed GE regulations constitute
further proof that there is no clear congressional authorization tied
to the proposed GE regulations. In addition, some commenters viewed the
proposed GE program eligibility framework in its use of two outcome
measures as a significant expansion of the prior GE regulations and
argued that such a framework could only be supported with clear
authorization from Congress.
Discussion: As discussed in detail in the NPRM \42\ and summarized
in this document under ``Authority for this Regulatory Action,'' the GE
program accountability framework is supported by the Department's
statutory responsibilities to enforce eligibility limits in title IV of
the HEA as well as the Department's generally applicable rulemaking
authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 88 FR 32300, 32321-22 (May 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the latter, Federal statutes grant the Secretary general
crosscutting rulemaking authority that includes and extends beyond
title IV of the HEA. Section 410 of the General Education Provisions
Act (GEPA) provides the Secretary with authority to make, promulgate,
issue, rescind, and amend rules and regulations governing the manner of
operations of, and governing the applicable programs administered by,
the Department.\43\ This authority includes the power to promulgate
regulations relating to programs that we administer, such as the title
IV, HEA programs that provide Federal loans, grants, and other aid to
students. Furthermore, section 414 of the DEOA authorizes the Secretary
to prescribe such rules and regulations as the Secretary determines
necessary or appropriate to administer and manage the functions of the
Secretary or the Department.\44\ These provisions, together with the
provisions in the HEA regarding GE programs, authorize the Department
to promulgate regulations that establish measures to determine the
eligibility of GE programs for title IV, HEA program funds; require
institutions to report information about GE programs to the Secretary;
require institutions to provide information about GE programs to
students, prospective students, and others; and establish certification
requirements regarding an institution's GE programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3.
\44\ 20 U.S.C. 3474.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for title IV of the HEA and its eligibility requirements,
institutions must meet institution-level as well as program-level
eligibility requirements for students in those programs to receive
title IV assistance in the form of loans or grants. HEA sections 101
and 102 state that one type of program for which certain categories of
institutions must establish program-level eligibility is a ``program of
training to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized
occupation.'' \45\ HEA section 481 articulates this same requirement by
defining, in part, an ``eligible program'' as a ``program of training
to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized
profession.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 20 U.S.C. 1001(b)(1); 20 U.S.C. 1002(b)(1)(A)(i),
(c)(1)(A).
\46\ 20 U.S.C. 1088(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has increased its focus on these eligibility
requirements over time as key circumstances have changed. College
tuition levels have continued to rise relative to inflation, and
student borrowing levels have reached very high levels. The earnings of
college graduates have not risen apace, however, and earnings outcomes
are not tightly correlated with borrowing levels. Moreover, cases of
institutions using deceptive recruiting and advertising practices to
lure students into postsecondary programs with little return on
investment remain too common. All of these factors combine to strand
many graduates with unaffordable education debt and little enhancement
to their earnings--too often leaving them worse off financially than if
they had not pursued postsecondary education at all. While the
financial returns to college remain high overall for the average
student, in recent years these trends have contributed to increased
skepticism about the value of going to college \47\--threatening one of
the key pathways to upward mobility in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Several surveys have documented declines in the share of
individuals who believe college is worth the cost. For example, see
Education Expectations: Views on the Value of College and Likelihood
to Enroll (June 15, 2022). Strada (https://stradaeducation.org/report/pv-release-june-15-2022/). Klebs, Shelbe, Fishman, Rachel,
Nguyen, Sophie & Hiler, Tamara (2021). One Year Later: COVID-19s
Impact on Current and Future College Students. Third Way (https://www.thirdway.org/memo/one-year-later-covid-19s-impact-on-current-and-future-college-students). See also Board of Governors of the
Fed. Reserve Sys. (May 2022). Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households
in 2021 (https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2021-report-economic-well-being-us-households-202205.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recognize that these forces are an issue across sectors.
However, by defining GE programs as programs that prepare students for
gainful employment, Congress indicated that the value of adding such
programs to the Federal student loan program and to title IV of the HEA
more broadly lies in their financial outcomes. Yet, despite that
statutory focus, GE programs account for a disproportionate share of
students who complete programs with very low earnings and unmanageable
debt. An essentially transparency-only approach to GE programs, which
is reflected in the 2019 Prior Rule, has not substantially improved the
most troubling trends. To address both the Department's obligation to
oversee that the statutory eligibility requirements are met and to
address the specific need for regulatory action within the sector, the
GE program accountability framework specifies what it means to prepare
students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. The
framework does so by establishing clear and administrable measures that
are tied to student financial outcomes and that the Department will use
to evaluate whether a GE program is eligible for title IV, HEA program
funds. One measure focuses on manageable debt (the D/E rates measure),
the other on enhanced earnings (the EP measure).\48\ We believe the D/E
and EP measures, singly and taken together, will help promote the
[[Page 70012]]
goal of career programs actually providing financial value to their
graduates--consistent with the statutory definition of GE programs and
in service of the specific need for regulatory action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ For a detailed discussion of how the D/E rates measure and
the EP measure assess whether a program is preparing students for
gainful employment in a recognized occupation, see the Gainful
Employment Criteria section in the NPRM, 88 FR 32300, 32343 (May 19,
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GE accountability rules effectuate core statutory provisions in
practical and administrable ways. The definitions of ``gainful
employment'' programs are central to the statutory scheme regarding GE
programs, and those provisions establish limits on the programs that
may receive taxpayer support through title IV, HEA loans and grants to
students in those programs. The measures adopted in the GE program
eligibility framework are designed to ensure eligible programs leave
students with affordable debt and enhanced earnings, consistent with
the ordinary meaning of the operative words in the statute. It is not
only reasonable but also in accord with all indications of Congress's
intent to conclude that a program does not prepare students for gainful
employment in a recognized occupation if typical program graduates are
left with unaffordable debt, or if they earn no more than comparable
high school graduates.\49\ Students in such programs receive no
financial gain, and may even experience financial loss, as a result of
attending their career training programs. Those results indicate
failure, not success, as a title IV, HEA eligible GE program. To be
sure, as shown Tables 4.8 and 4.9 in the RIA, the Department estimates
that most of the existing GE programs serving the majority of GE
students will not fail these metrics, let alone be ineligible for title
IV, HEA participation by failing in two of three consecutive years for
which results are issued. In any event, the programs that may lose
title IV, HEA eligibility under these rules are the programs that
perform especially poorly for students and, consequentially, taxpayers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Some commenters criticized the Department's position in
favor of performance measures for GE programs as focusing overly
much on the two words, ``gainful employment.'' In our view, that
criticism understates the depth of analysis and breadth of
considerations that support the Department's position--including our
attention to the GE provisions as a whole as well as the structure
of the Higher Education Act more broadly. This criticism also
undervalues the enacted text, however many or few words are relevant
to the issue of GE performance measures. We are unpersuaded by
arguments that appear to place little value, and consequently no
serious limits, on the terms of the gainful employment provisions in
the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, in past litigation involving affordable debt metrics,
courts have accepted that reasonable performance measures may be used
to evaluate the eligibility of GE programs for title IV, HEA
participation. Those courts based those decisions on the text,
structure, and purposes of the relevant statutory provisions. Thus, in
reviewing previous GE rules, courts have examined the GE provisions of
the HEA and explained, for example, that ``train'' and ``prepare'' are
terms that ``suggest elevation to something more than just any paying
job. They suggest jobs that students would less likely be able to
obtain without that training and preparation.'' \50\ Courts have
further concluded that ``it is reasonable to consider students' success
in the job market as an indication of whether those students were, in
fact, adequately prepared,'' \51\ and that ``examining [GE] programs'
outputs in terms of earnings and debts'' is consistent with the
HEA.\52\ Accordingly, the basic question of whether the HEA authorizes
nonarbitrary GE performance measures has been resolved repeatedly in
the Department's favor. There are, of course, issues of detail to
settle in formulating particular outcome measures that are clear,
workable, and suited to their purposes. Indeed, questions of how
exactly to specify the GE performance measures involve complex
assessments of how best to evaluate whether programs prepare students
for gainful employment, which the Department is statutorily authorized
and well-positioned to resolve given the Department's experience,
knowledge, and expertise. The Department administers the relevant
statutes, and it has used the negotiated rulemaking process to inform
its views and gather and consider a broad range of perspectives before
adopting these final rules. Importantly, the Department now has better
data and data analysis than ever previously available.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Ass'n of Priv. Sector Colleges & Universities v. Duncan,
640 F. App'x 5, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (per curiam).
\51\ Ass'n of Proprietary Colleges v. Duncan, 107 F. Supp. 3d
332, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Ass'n of Priv. Colleges & Universities v. Duncan, 870 F. Supp. 2d
133, 147-48 (D.D.C. 2012)).
\52\ Ass'n of Priv. Sector Colleges & Universities v. Duncan,
110 F. Supp. 3d 176, 187-88 (D.D.C. 2015) (emphasis omitted), aff'd,
640 F. App'x 5 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (per curiam); id. at 187 n.4
(explaining by way of analogy that there is ``no irreconcilable
conflict'' between a concentration on ``inputs'' such as pre-match
training and ``outputs'' in terms of match performance).
\53\ See the RIA in this document for analyses of how the D/E
rates metric and the earnings premium metric provide objective,
data-driven assessments of whether GE programs are preparing their
students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation or
whether they are instead leaving their students with unmanageable
debt or no better off than if they had not pursued a postsecondary
credential. See also the discussion below of the earnings premium
metric and reasons for its adoption, in light of recent developments
and new evidence, in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The foregoing points and discussion elsewhere in this document and
the NPRM are sufficient to establish the Department's authority to
adopt the GE program eligibility framework. If additional support were
needed, statutory history and legislative history confirm that program
performance, including performance related to enhanced earnings and
affordable debt, has been a focus of the relevant statutory provisions
from the beginning. Such program performance was addressed in
legislative history of the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance
Act (NVSLIA), Public Law 89-287 (1965)--which is the statute that first
permitted students to obtain federally financed loans to enroll in
vocational programs. Both the ability of students to repay loans and
the benefits to students from training were identified as principal
issues during the development of that legislation.\54\ Indeed, the
Senate Report that accompanied the NVSLIA quoted extensively from
testimony on behalf of the American Personnel and Guidance Association,
which supported the legislation for the purpose of enabling students to
ensure their financial security by ``acquiring job skills which will
allow them to enter and compete successfully in our increasingly
complex occupational society,'' while also emphasizing, based on an
early study, that ``sufficient numbers'' of graduates of such programs
``were working for sufficient wages to make the concept of student
loans to be [repaid] following graduation a reasonable approach to
take.'' \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See generally Ass'n of Priv. Colleges & Universities v.
Duncan, 870 F. Supp. 2d 133, 138-41 (D.D.C. 2012) (APCU) (reviewing
statutory history and legislative history).
\55\ S. Rep. No. 89-758 (1965), reprinted in 1965 U.S.C.C.A.N.
3742, 3748-49 (quoting testimony of Professor Dr. Kenneth B. Hoyt);
id. at 3749 (further quoting Hoyt's testimony as finding no reason
to believe that making government funds available would be
unjustified ``in terms of benefits accruing to both these students
and to society in general, nor that they would represent a poor
financial risk''); id. at 3744 (explaining that the testimony
``confirmed the committee's estimate of the need for such
legislation''); APCU, 870 F. Supp. 2d at 139 (stating that both
House and Senate subcommittees ``placed considerable weight on Dr.
Hoyt's testimony'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statutory framework has not changed in relevant part, and the
taxpayer interest in safeguarding the use of Federal funds persists
today. Under the loan insurance program enacted in the NVSLIA, the
specific potential loss to taxpayers of concern was the need to pay
default claims to banks and other lenders if the borrowers defaulted on
[[Page 70013]]
the loans. After its passage, the NVSLIA was merged into the HEA which,
in title IV, part B, has both a direct Federal loan insurance component
and a Federal reinsurance component that require the Federal Government
to reimburse State and private nonprofit loan guaranty agencies upon
their payment of default claims.\56\ Under either HEA component,
taxpayers and the Government assume the direct financial risk of
default.\57\ Since the Health Care and Reconciliation Act of 2010,\58\
all Federal loans have been originated as Direct Loans from the Federal
Government. As the originator and owner of Federal loans, the Federal
Government (funded by taxpayers) bears the cost of any unpaid loans.
Costs are generated by borrowers defaulting on their loans, but
increasingly costs are also generated by borrowers electing to repay
their loans on income driven repayment (IDR) plans. Under these plans,
borrowers can pay a fixed share of the portion of their income
exceeding a threshold level (i.e., their discretionary income) for a
preset period of time, and then have the remaining balance forgiven.
When borrowers' debts are high relative to their income, they are more
likely to not fully repay their loans. To avoid adverse repayment risks
both from default or loan forgiveness via IDR plans, taxpayers have an
interest in financing career training programs that leave students
better off in terms of earnings, and with debt in reasonable proportion
to their earnings. Participation in IDR plans has increased by
approximately 50 percent since 2016 to about 9 million borrowers and is
likely to increase more with the introduction of the new and more
generous Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) IDR plan. Accordingly,
the Department has a significant interest, on behalf of taxpayers, in
ensuring the funds disbursed through title IV, HEA loans are invested
responsibly, further supporting the use of performance measures to
assess a program's eligibility to participate in the title IV, HEA
programs as a GE program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ 20 U.S.C. 1071(a)(1).
\57\ 20 U.S.C. 1078(c) (Federal reinsurance for default claim
payments); 20 U.S.C. 1080 (Federal insurance for default claims).
\58\ Public Law 111-152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the earnings premium measure, we offer further
discussion below. We note here that, to receive title IV funds, section
484 of the HEA generally requires that students already have a high
school diploma or recognized equivalent. That requirement makes high-
school-level achievement the presumptive starting point for title IV,
HEA funds. The EP measure adopts that statutory starting point by
comparing the earnings of typical program completers with those of
comparable high school graduates. As with the debt-to-earnings measure,
the earnings premium measure is consistent with the text, structure,
and purposes of the statute.
We disagree with the commenters who contended that the differences
between the 2014 Prior Rule and the GE program accountability framework
in these regulations suggest a lack of statutory authority. In the
NPRM, we discussed the background of the regulations,\59\ the relevant
data available,\60\ and the major changes proposed in that
document,\61\ including the changes from the 2014 Prior Rule and the
2019 Prior Rule. Although the GE program accountability framework in
this final rule differs from the 2014 Prior Rule, including in the
addition of a standalone earnings premium measure, we have demonstrated
how the D/E rates measure and the EP measure, singly and taken
together, are reasonable, evidence-based metrics that both serve to
meet the statutory eligibility requirements and address the specific
need for regulatory action in the sector. The fact that this final rule
varies from prior GE regulations is not indicative of lack of authority
for the Department to implement the statutory provisions related to GE
programs and to develop rules to properly administer the title IV, HEA
programs. Rather, the development of this rule reflects the reality
that the Department's judgments and policies on a variety of issues may
change over time in light of experience, information, and analysis--
which the law permits, as long as the Department's rules remain within
the boundaries of the applicable statutes and the Department provides a
reasoned basis for the change in position.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ 88 FR 32300, 32306 (May 19, 2023).
\60\ 88 FR 32300, 32392 (May 19, 2023).
\61\ 88 FR 32300, 32317 (May 19, 2023).
\62\ See, for example, FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556
U.S. 502, 515-16 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department, therefore, disagrees with commenters who believe
that the GE program accountability framework is not within the
Department's statutory authority, and further disagrees with claims
that GE program results are not relevant to GE program eligibility for
title IV, HEA funding. The Department also disagrees with suggestions
that we should implement the statute without clear and administrable
rules for evaluating whether GE programs are meeting statutory
eligibility requirements. Without relatively specific rules, the
Department could not adequately ensure that title IV, HEA funds are
properly channeled to students attending programs that prepare students
for gainful employment; institutions would not have clarity as to the
standards for GE programs that the Department applies; and we would not
be able to address the need for regulatory action in the sector.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ In suggesting that congressional intent regarding GE
programs indicates relatively narrow authority for the Department, a
commenter pointed to post-enactment statements by Members of
Congress as well as unsuccessful legislation. The Department is
attentive to input from Members of Congress, but we disagree that
the statutory authority for these rules is limited by unenacted
bills or policy positions. To the extent that the 2019 Prior Rule
can somehow be read to adopt a contrary position, that position
cannot be sustained. See, for example, Bostock v. Clayton County,
140 S. Ct. 1731, 1747 (2020) (``All we can know for certain is that
speculation about why a later Congress declined to adopt new
legislation offers a `particularly dangerous' basis on which to rest
an interpretation of an existing law a different and earlier
Congress did adopt.'') (quoting Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. LTV
Corp., 496 U.S. 633, 650 (1990)). In this rulemaking, we have
emphasized, among other sources, statutory text, structure, purpose,
and past judicial decisions, as well as the Department's well-
reasoned choices on matters of detail in the exercise of its
authority to administer the relevant statutes and in light of the
Department's experience and expertise. Nothing in the 2019 Prior
Rule, and its more limited review of the foregoing considerations,
prevents the Department from engaging in this analysis and reaching
the conclusions set forth herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note, finally, that all or nearly all of the commenters'
arguments against any GE performance measure have been raised and
rejected during previous rulemaking efforts and in litigation over
previous versions of the Department's GE program accountability rules.
The statutory arguments against considering GE program outcomes of any
kind are not more persuasive now than they were in past years. In fact,
new data, data analysis, and the Department's experience in attempting
to enforce the statutory limits on GE programs have convinced us that
these performance measures are more, not less, urgently needed.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters questioned the Department's authority, at
least at this time, to adopt performance measures for GE program
eligibility including the earnings premium (EP) measure. Some
commenters noted that the EP measure is a new standard and argued that
the measure was beyond the Department's authority to adopt for
evaluating the eligibility of GE programs to participate in title IV,
HEA. Some commenters asserted that the Department had not adequately
supported the EP measure in the NPRM, or that the Department's
[[Page 70014]]
support for the EP measure is arbitrary. While many commentators did
not focus on the EP measure in terms of the Department's statutory
authority, some commenters did make general challenges to the GE
program accountability framework that applied to the EP measure as well
as the debt-to-earnings (D/E) rates. Some of those challenges were
based on the commenters' interpretation of ``gainful employment'' in
the GE statutory provisions to mean any job that pays any amount, and
on the contention that the Department is arbitrarily changing its
position from the 2019 Prior Rule.
Discussion: In several respects, this final rule differs from the
2019 Prior Rule as well as the 2014 Prior Rule. We have acknowledged
those differences and offered reasons for them in this document and in
the NPRM.\64\ One difference is the addition of an earnings premium
measure, which will operate alongside the debt-to-earnings rates
measure in evaluating GE program eligibility. Further details and
reasons for adopting the EP measure are presented below and in the
NPRM.\65\ In this discussion, we summarize several connected reasons
for adopting the EP measure for GE program eligibility in these final
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See 88 FR 32300, 32307-08 (May 19, 2023); id. at 32309-11,
32342-43 (providing reasons for the adoption of GE accountability
rules at this time, in view of the 2019 Prior Rule and subsequent
developments).
\65\ See, for example, 88 FR 32300, 32308, 32325-28, 32343-44
(May 19, 2023). Those discussions also address the D/E rates
measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, the Department's careful review of applicable law and
public comments leave us convinced that the EP measure is within the
Department's statutory authority. Statutory text, structure, and
purpose support that conclusion. If program completers' earnings fall
below those of students who never pursue postsecondary education in the
first place, programs cannot fairly be said to ``train'' postsecondary
students to ``prepare'' them for ``gainful employment'' in recognized
professions or occupations.\66\ Those statutory terms indicate that
eligible GE programs must make students ready or able to achieve
gainful employment in such professions or occupations--consistent with
a statutory purpose of improving students' ultimate job prospects and
income over what they would be in the absence of such training and
preparation. As the D.C. Circuit stated when it reviewed the D/E
measure in the 2014 Prior Rule, those statutory terms ``suggest
elevation to something more than just any paying job. They suggest jobs
that students would less likely be able to obtain without that training
and preparation.'' \67\ At minimum, the statutory language permits the
conclusion that the Department adopts here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ 20 U.S.C. 1002(b)(1)(A), (c)(1)(A). See also 20 U.S.C.
1088(b)(1)(A)(i), which refers to a recognized profession.
\67\ Ass'n of Priv. Sector Colleges & Universities v. Duncan,
640 F. App'x 5, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (per curiam). Although the courts
were likewise reviewing D/E measures for GE program eligibility
rather than EP measures, generally supportive language also appears
in Ass'n of Priv. Sector Colleges & Universities v. Duncan, 110 F.
Supp. 3d 176, 187-88 (D.D.C. 2015) (stating that ``examining [GE]
programs' outputs in terms of earnings and debts'' is consistent
with the HEA) (emphasis omitted), aff'd, 640 F. App'x at 6; Ass'n of
Proprietary Colleges v. Duncan, 107 F. Supp. 3d 332, 362 (S.D.N.Y.
2015) (concluding that ``it is reasonable to consider students'
success in the job market as an indication of whether those students
were, in fact, adequately prepared'') (internal quotation marks
omitted) (quoting Ass'n of Priv. Colleges & Universities v. Duncan,
870 F. Supp. 2d 133, 147-48 (D.D.C. 2012)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, the overall structure of the applicable statutes
reinforces our adoption of the EP measure. The basic starting point for
students at eligible GE programs is a high school education or its
equivalent, as we pointed out in the NPRM.\68\ The HEA generally
requires students who receive title IV assistance to have already
completed a high school education,\69\ and then, from that starting
point, the statute requires GE programs to prepare those high school
graduates for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. Whatever
ambiguity or vagueness there might be in the HEA, clearly GE programs
are supposed to enhance earnings power beyond that of what high school
graduates, not leave them where they started. The EP measure reflects
that premise of the applicable statutes. It will measure post-high
school gain, in part, with an administrable test that reflects earnings
beyond a typical high school graduate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See, for example, 88 FR 32300, 32308, 32333, 32327 (May 19,
2023).
\69\ Regarding a high school education as the starting point, 20
U.S.C. 1001 states that an institution of higher education must only
admit as regular students those individuals who have completed their
secondary education or met specific requirements under 20 U.S.C.
1091(d), which includes an assessment that they demonstrate the
ability to benefit from the postsecondary program being offered. The
definitions for a proprietary institution of higher education or a
postsecondary vocational institution in 20 U.S.C. 1002 maintain the
same requirement for admitting individuals who have completed
secondary education. Similarly, there are only narrow exceptions for
students beyond the age of compulsory attendance who are dually or
concurrently enrolled in postsecondary and secondary education. The
apparent purpose of such limitations is to help promote that
postsecondary programs build skills and knowledge that extend beyond
what is taught in high school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The discussions in this document and in the NPRM are more than
sufficient to establish the Department's authority to adopt the GE
eligibility rules, including the EP measure.
The Department recognizes again, as we did in the NPRM,\70\ that
the EP measure will be new to the Department's regulations. More
broadly, we recognize that until 2010 the Department did not specify
through regulations an administrable test to identify which programs
qualify as eligible GE programs under the statutes. Nevertheless, we do
not believe that the meaning of the applicable statutes becomes
narrower because the agency initially refrained from issuing
regulations that incorporated specific performance tests. The need for
such rules became clearer over time. In addition to the points made
above, new data and analyses have underscored the need for performance-
based limits on GE program eligibility, including a test for enhanced
student earnings. Acting now will enable the Department to respond to
that emerging need with administrable tests of program performance that
accord with statutory text, structure, and purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See 88 FR 32300, 32307-11 (May 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An EP measure for GE eligibility finds support in recent evidence
and studies. Within the last several years, a number of researchers
have recommended that the Department reinstate the 2014 GE rule with an
added layer of accountability through a high school earnings
metric.\71\ That goal of ensuring that students benefit financially
from their career training fits with broader research on the economics
of postsecondary education. Similar earnings premium metrics are used
ubiquitously by economists and other analysts to measure the earnings
gains associated with college credentials relative to a high school
education.\72\
[[Page 70015]]
Furthermore, there is increasing public recognition that some higher
education programs are not ``worth it'' and do not promote economic
mobility.\73\ While the D/E rates measure identifies programs where
debt is high relative to earnings, the EP measure assesses the economic
boost a program provides to its students independent of the debt
incurred. After all, students and families invest their own time and
money in postsecondary education in addition to the amount they borrow.
The EP measure therefore provides a different measure than the D/E
metric of whether a program prepares its students for gainful
employment in a recognized occupation. Adopting an EP measure for GE
programs that seek to participate in title IV, HEA fits within such
recent recommendations, data analysis, and mainstream thinking about
which career training programs should be considered gainful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See, for example, Matsudaira, Jordan D. & Turner, Lesley J.
(2020). Towards a Framework for Accountability for Federal Financial
Assistance Programs in Postsecondary Education. The Brookings
Institution (www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/20210603-Mats-Turner.pdf). Cellini, Stephanie R. & Blanchard, Kathryn J.
(2022). Using a High School Earnings Benchmark to Measure College
Student Success Implications for Accountability and Equity. The
Postsecondary Equity and Economics Research Project.
(www.peerresearchproject.org/peer/research/body/2022.3.3PEER_HSEarnings-Updated.pdf). Itzkowitz, Michael (2020).
Price to Earnings Premium: A New Way of Measuring Return on
Investment in Higher Education. Third Way (https://www.thirdway.org/report/price-to-earnings-premium-a-new-way-of-measuring-return-on-investment-in-higher-ed). For further discussion of such research,
see the Regulatory Impact Analysis below.
\72\ See, for example, Autor, D.H. (2014). Skills, Education,
and the Rise of Earnings Inequality Among the ``Other 99 Percent.''
Science,344(6186), 843-851. Baum, S. (2014). Higher Education
Earnings Premium: Value, Variation, and Trends. Urban Institute.
Carnevale, A.P., Cheah, B. & Rose, S.J. (2011). The College Pay Off.
Daly, M.C. & Bengali, L. (2014). Is It Still Worth Going to College.
FRBSF Economic Letter,13(2014), 1-5. Li, A., Wallace, M. & Hyde, A.
(2019). Degrees of Inequality: The Great Recession and the College
Earnings Premium in US Metropolitan Areas. Social Science
Research,84, 102342; Oreopoulos, P. & Petronijevic, U. (2013).
Making College Worth It: A Review of Research on the Returns to
Higher Education. NBER Working Papers, (19053); and Broady, Kristen
E. & Herschbein, Brad (2020). Major Decisions: What Graduates Earn
Over Their Lifetimes. The Hamilton Project.
\73\ See, for example, polling evidence in https://www.wsj.com/articles/americans-are-losing-faith-in-college-education-wsj-norc-poll-finds-3a836ce1. A 2022 survey by the Federal Reserve shows that
more than one-third of workers under the age of 45 say the benefits
of their education did not exceed the costs (https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2022-report-economic-well-being-us-households-202305.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the EP measure that we adopt will set only minimal and
reasonable expectations for programs that are supposed to help students
move beyond a high school baseline. The rule marks an incremental and
commonsense change that we are confident is within the Department's
authority. In particular, we observe that the median earnings of high
school graduates is about $25,000 nationally, which corresponds to the
earnings of a full-time worker who makes about $12.50 per hour.\74\ We
also reiterate that the EP measure does not demand that every
individual who attends a GE program must earn more than a high school
graduate; instead, the measure requires only that at least half of
those who actually complete the program are earning at least slightly
more than individuals who had never completed postsecondary
education.\75\ The vast majority of students cite the opportunity for a
good job or higher earnings as a key, if not the most important, reason
they chose to pursue a college degree.\76\ While the 2014 Prior Rule
justifiably emphasized that borrowers should be able to earn enough to
afford to repay their debts, the Department recognizes here that
borrowers must be able to afford more than ''just'' their loan payments
and that postsecondary GE programs should help students reach a minimal
level of labor market earnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ That figure is lower than the minimum wage in 15 States.
See https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/mw-consolidated.
\75\ See 88 FR 32300, 32333, 32327 (May 19, 2023). The EP
measure simply compares program completers' earnings with high
school graduates' earnings and therefore does not reflect tuition
costs or debt. See id. at 32327. Note that these EP features are not
unique to the GE program eligibility provisions. These EP features
apply within the financial value transparency provisions as well.
\76\ For example, a recent survey of 2,000 persons aged 16 to 19
and 2,000 recent college graduates aged 22 to 30 rated affordable
tuition, higher income potential, and lower student debt as the top
3 to 4 most important factors in choosing a college (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/27/opinion/problem-college-rankings.html).
The RIA includes citations of other survey results with similar
findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although modest in several respects, the EP measure for GE program
eligibility is nonetheless likely to deliver important benefits and
substantially further statutory purposes. We are convinced of these
prospective gains by recent evidence. For example, recent research
indicates that the EP measure will help protect students from the
adverse borrowing outcomes prevalent among programs with very low
earnings. Research conducted since the 2014 Prior Rule as well as new
data analyses shown in this RIA illustrate that, for borrowers with low
earnings, even small amounts of debt--including levels of debt that
would not trigger failure of the D/E rates--can be unmanageable. We now
can be reasonably confident that default rates tend to be especially
high among borrowers with lower debt levels and very low earnings,
because at low earnings levels any amount of debt in unaffordable.\77\
Analyses in this RIA show that the default rate among students in
programs that pass the D/E rates thresholds but fail the earnings
premium are very high. In fact, those default rates are even higher
than programs that fail the D/E rates measure but pass the EP measure.
In that sense, the EP measure is an important separate measure of
gainfulness, providing some added protection to borrowers who have
relatively low balances, but who have earnings so low that even low
levels of debt payments are unaffordable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ See Brown, Meta et al. (2015). Looking at Student Loan
Defaults Through a Larger Window. Liberty Street Economics, Fed.
Reserve Bank of N.Y. (https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2015/02/looking_at_student_loan_defaults_through_a_larger_window/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we reaffirm that the EP measure will help protect
taxpayers.\78\ Borrowers with low earnings are eligible for reduced
loan payments and loan forgiveness, which increase the costs of the
title IV, HEA loan program to taxpayers. While income-driven repayment
(IDR) plans for Federal student loans partially shield borrowers from
default due to inability to make payments, such after-the-fact
protections do not address underlying program failures to prepare
students for gainful employment in the first place, and they exacerbate
the impact of such failures on taxpayers as a whole when borrowers are
unable to pay. Not all borrowers participate in these repayment plans
and, where they do, the risks of nonpayment are shifted to taxpayers
when borrowers' payments are not sufficient to fully pay back their
loans. This is true because borrowers with persistently low incomes who
enroll in IDR--and thereby make payments based on a share of their
income that can be as low as $0--will have their remaining balances
forgiven at taxpayer expense after a specified number of years in
repayment. Both the EP and D/E measures for GE program eligibility will
help protect taxpayers, because both measures are well-designed to
screen out GE programs that generate a disproportionate share of the
costs to taxpayers and negative borrower outcomes. In support of this
conclusion, the final RIA as well as the NPRM's RIA presented estimates
of loan repayment under the hypothetical assumption that all borrowers
pay on the SAVE plan announced by the Department in July 2023.\79\
These analyses show that both D/E and EP measures are strongly
correlated with an estimated subsidy rate on Federal loans, which
measures the share of a disbursed loan that will not be repaid, and
thus provides a proxy for the cost of loans to taxpayers.\80\ Although
many commenters disagreed with at least part of the Department's
approach to GE programs, commenters did not appear to take issue with
the proposition that taxpayer protection is a purpose to be served by
the GE provisions in the HEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ See, for example, 88 FR 32300, 32307-09 (May 19, 2023).
\79\ See 88 FR 1894 (Jan. 11, 2023). The Department's final rule
for IDR can be found at 88 FR 43820 (July 10, 2023).
\80\ See Table 2.10 in the RIA for this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the EP and D/E measures serve some of the same purposes, but
we observe again that they measure importantly distinct dimensions of
[[Page 70016]]
gainful employment.\81\ The distinctions support the Department's
decision to require that GE programs not (repeatedly) fail either
measure if those programs are to receive title IV, HEA support. D/E
rates measure debt-affordability, indicating whether the typical
graduate will have earnings enough to manage their debt service
payments without incurring undue hardship. For any median earnings
level of a program, the D/E rates and thresholds imply a maximum level
of total borrowing beyond which students should be concerned that they
may not be able to successfully manage their debt. The EP measure tests
whether programs leave their completers with greater earnings capacity
than those who do not enroll in postsecondary education, which
represents a minimal benchmark that students pursuing postsecondary
credentials likely expect to achieve. And while the EP measure provides
additional protection to borrowers and taxpayers, it attends to a
distinct aspect of determining whether a program prepares its students
for gainful employment in a recognized occupation--namely, the extent
to which the program helps students attain a minimally acceptable
earnings enhancement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See, for example, 88 FR 32300, 32308, 32327, 32344 (May 19,
2023). We reiterate that the D/E and EP measures are severable. The
severability provisions in these final rules are Sec. Sec. 668.409
and 668.606. For the Department's discussions of severability
generally and as applied to the D/E and EP measures, please see the
NPRM, 88 FR 32300, 32341-42, 32349 (May 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, we disagree with commenters who argue that the
Department either generally lacks authority to adopt the EP measure for
GE program eligibility, or that the Department chose the wrong time to
adopt that measure. We understand the opinions of those who prefer that
the Department not adopt administrable and clear rules to test GE
program performance. Unlike the rules as they stood after the 2019
rescission, these final rules will demand that GE programs not have a
track record of failure on certain basic measures of performance if
they seek to benefit from title IV, HEA taxpayer funds. Some GE
programs will repeatedly fail those measures, although we point out
that some of those programs will survive without support from the
Federal Government through title IV, HEA. Regardless, we are convinced
that these rules are within the Department's statutory authority, and
that recent events and new information confirm the importance of acting
now. If the Department does not act effectively at the front end to
screen out the subset of GE programs that do not meet minimal
performance standards of enhanced earnings and affordable debt,
students and taxpayers will continue to suffer the consequences at the
back end. Those consequences have grown larger and clearer, and the
Department has decided to respond decisively yet reasonably. A clear
earnings premium rule for GE program eligibility is one part of that
measured response.
Comments: Several commenters contended that there is an increased
burden on the Department to demonstrate congressional authorization for
its proposed GE metrics under West Virginia v. Environmental Protection
Agency \82\ and the major questions doctrine. These commenters
described the proposed eligibility framework as a major shift in the
way GE programs maintain title IV, HEA eligibility that would impact
the funding for many students and institutions, and asserted that the
framework creates burdensome new reporting requirements. These
commenters concluded that the statutory language relied upon--that GE
programs ``prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized
occupation''--is not a sufficiently explicit statement of congressional
intent to support such a change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: We disagree that the major questions doctrine applies
such that the Department needs an especially clear grant of statutory
authority to adopt performance standards in the GE program
accountability framework. Having considered the factors that courts
have used to identify exceptional circumstances in which such clarity
is required, we do not believe that the doctrine applies here.\83\ If
the doctrine did apply, we believe that the Department's authority to
adopt performance standards for GE program eligibility is adequately
clear based on ordinary tools of statutory interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ See, for example, id. at 2608 (discussing extraordinary
cases in which the breadth, history, and economic and political
significance of asserted agency authority provide reason to hesitate
before concluding that Congress conferred such authority).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above and in the NPRM,\84\ we believe performance
measures for GE accountability rules are firmly grounded in the text,
structure, and purposes of tile IV, HEA, including its gainful
employment provisions. Furthermore, and for reasons also discussed
above, GE performance measures are neither novel nor surprising. We
have noted past litigation and court opinions.\85\ And given the
grounding of performance measures in the text of core statutory
provisions in the HEA regarding GE programs, there is nothing
``ancillary'' about those statutory provisions such that the major
questions doctrine might apply on that basis.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ 88 FR 32300, 32306 (May 19, 2023).
\85\ See cases cited in notes 50-52 above, within that earlier
discussion of authority for the GE program accountability framework.
\86\ Compare Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 468
(2001) (``Congress, we have held, does not alter the fundamental
details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary
provisions--it does not, one might say, hide elephants in
mouseholes.''); Ass'n of Priv. Colleges & Universities v. Duncan,
870 F. Supp. 2d 133, 148 (D.D.C. 2012) (APCU) (reviewing the 2011
Prior GE Rule, distinguishing Whitman, and explaining that
``[n]either the elephant nor the mousehole is present here. . . .
Concerned about inadequate programs and unscrupulous institutions,
the Department has gone looking for rats in ratholes--as the statute
empowers it to do.''); Ass'n of Proprietary Colleges v. Duncan, 107
F. Supp. 3d 332, 361 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (reviewing the 2014 Prior GE
Rule and quoting APCU).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And far from taking any step toward mandating specific curricula
when institutions prefer other educational strategies,\87\ these
performance measures simply evaluate whether programs should receive
taxpayer support based on commonsense financial outcomes: affordable
debt and enhanced earnings. Those outcomes plainly are related to
whether a program actually prepares students for gainful employment in
a recognized occupation or profession, instead of leaving the typical
program completer with unaffordable debt burdens or no greater earnings
than they could secure without career training. These performance
measures are based on the text, structure, and purposes of the
governing statutes. Such rules are, moreover, within the heartland of
the Department's experience and expertise. Among the Department's
longstanding missions are enforcing the limits on title IV, HEA
eligibility for GE programs, and gathering, analyzing, and using data
to evaluate education programs including GE programs. Accordingly, GE
performance measures are not beyond the agency's core competence such
that the major questions doctrine might apply on that basis.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Under section 103 of the Department of Education
Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. 3403(b), the Department is generally
prohibited from exercising any direction, supervision, or control
over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or
personnel of an educational institution, school, or school system.
\88\ Compare W. Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. at 2612-13
(indicating that presumably Congress does not task an agency with
making policy judgments in which the agency has ``no comparative
expertise''); Biden v. Missouri, 142 S. Ct. 647, 653 (2022)
(``[T]here can be no doubt that addressing infection problems in
Medicare and Medicaid facilities is what [the Secretary of Health
and Human Services] does.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70017]]
In addition, available data indicate that the GE program
accountability framework will have important yet limited effects. The
available data, presented in RIA Tables 4.8 and 4.9, indicate that most
existing GE programs will not fail the D/E rates or EP measure when
they are applied, let alone fail two out of three years for which
program results are issued. Our estimates suggest about 1,700 GE
programs will fail the D/E rates or EP measure--representing about 5.3
percent of all GE programs, and only 1.1 percent of all higher
education programs attended by federally aided students. While the
share of students currently enrolled in such programs is higher--23.7
percent of federally aided students in career training programs, and
3.6 percent of all federally aided students--it is important to note
these students have other options. Analyses presented in Tables 4.25
and 4.26 of the RIA show that the majority of students have similar
program options that do not fail the D/E rates or EP measure and are
nearby, or even at the same institution. These analyses are supported
by external research, suggesting that most students in institutions
closed by accountability provisions successfully reenroll in higher
performing colleges.\89\ More generally, many more students will pursue
a postsecondary education in the future, relative to the number
enrolled now. As programs with poor performance close, these future
college goers will benefit from better options to choose from and are
unlikely to otherwise be affected by programs closed today. In any
event, nearly three-quarters of institutions of higher education that
participate in title IV, HEA programs have no enrollment in failing GE
programs that might be subject to eligibility loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ Cellini, S.R., Darlie, R. & Turner, L.J. (2020). Where Do
Students Go When For-Profit Colleges Lose Federal Aid? American
Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 12(2): 46-83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those predicted effects do not establish the kind of transformation
or upheaval in higher education that might trigger the major questions
doctrine.\90\ Indeed none of the above considerations indicates the
special circumstances under which courts have invoked the major
questions doctrine to demand especially clear statutory authorization
for agency action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Compare W. Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. at 2610 (addressing
what the Court characterized as agency authority to ``substantially
restructure the American energy market,'' and an ``unheralded
power'' that would represent a ``transformative expansion'' of
agency authority) (internal quotation marks omitted); Biden v.
Nebraska, 143 S. Ct. 2355, 2373 (2023) (discussing what the Court
described as a ``fundamental revision of the statute'' and a
decision with ``staggering'' economic and political significance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, the GE program accountability framework is not
irrelevant as a matter of economics or politics. Every student who ends
up with enhanced earnings or more affordable debt is important, in the
Department's view, as is every Federal dollar saved from expenditure on
poorly performing GE programs. And we acknowledge that there is
disagreement among those who are engaged in the relevant policy debates
about the appropriate content for the GE rules. We likewise acknowledge
that the precise content of the GE rules and their effects are
important to institutions, students, and taxpayers. In fact, the HEA
requires that limits on GE programs be recognized and enforced; the
Department is not free to ignore those limits as if the applicable
sections were surplusage, and that point is not insignificant to the
statutory scheme. But in this instance, the Department is adopting
relatively modest, commonsense, minimum performance standards that most
GE programs seeking government support can and should pass without
trouble, and that do not preempt, through agency action, any widespread
political controversy that Congress intended to reserve for itself.
Although the Department must make judgments about the details of
performance measures to make the rules clear and easily administrable,
those choices of detail are, by definition, not subject to the major
questions doctrine.
We also observe that the Department has followed and benefitted
from an extensive process before issuing these final rules on GE
accountability. The Department used the negotiated rulemaking
provisions in the HEA, with notice and comment rulemaking, which is the
process that was created for the Department to consider the interests
of title IV, HEA participants, among others. In this context,
reestablishing an eligibility framework for GE programs fits well with
the financial value transparency framework for all programs while
setting an outcome-based limit for GE programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters contended that a lack of congressional
authorization to use outcomes-based measures for GE programs is shown
by other eligibility requirements in the HEA, including cohort default
rates, the 90/10 revenue requirement, and limitations on correspondence
courses. A commenter also asserted that Congress created cohort default
rates (CDRs) as a performance measure for institutions rather than
directing the Department to set program-based outcomes as eligibility
requirements. Some commenters argued that the framework of detailed
program requirements under title IV of the HEA, including institutional
CDR, institutional disclosure requirements, restrictions on student
loan borrowing, and other financial aid requirements, prevents the
Department from adopting debt measures to determine whether a GE
program is eligible to receive title IV, HEA program funds.
Discussion: The Department disagrees that GE performance measures
are somehow precluded by distinct and complementary safeguards
elsewhere in law. There is no express support in the statutes for that
position, which would diminish protections for students and taxpayers.
Instead, the commenters are suggesting an inference of exclusivity with
inadequate support in the statutes. Taking other safeguards as
exclusive would effectively ignore the statutorily prescribed limits on
GE programs as the HEA defines them. The Department can find no sound
reason, in law or policy, for treating the GE provisions as surplusage.
The Department's specification of details in clear and administrable
rules helps us to implement and enforce these provisions appropriately,
and the specific rules for these GE provisions are entirely consistent
with the specific requirements in other statutory provisions.
The Department accordingly disagrees with the commenters'
assertions that the HEA's provisions on CDR, student borrowing, and
other financial aid matters prevent the Department from implementing
the specific HEA provision limiting title IV eligibility to programs
that provide training that prepares students for gainful employment in
a recognized occupation. The different Department rules implement
different statutory provisions. For example, the CDR and GE regulations
serve related but different purposes. Congress enacted the CDR
provision, which measures loan defaults from all programs at the
institutional level, as one mechanism--not the sole, exclusive
mechanism--for dealing with abuses in Federal student aid programs.\91\
Congress did not, in
[[Page 70018]]
enacting the CDR provision or at any other time, limit the Department's
authority to promulgate regulations to effectuate and specify limits on
GE programs.\92\ Nor did Congress alter the existing statutory language
regarding GE program eligibility when it passed the CDR provision.
Moreover, the CDR provision operates at the institutional level while
the GE provisions and these GE accountability rules operate at the
program level. In addition to statutory eligibility requirements at the
institution level, each program must be evaluated for title IV, HEA
eligibility as well.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ That conclusion regarding the non-exclusivity of CDR is
consistent with relevant legislative history. See H.R. Rep. No. 110-
500, at 261 (2007) (``Over the years, a number of provisions have
been enacted under the HEA to protect the integrity of the federal
student aid programs. One effective mechanism was to restrict
federal loan eligibility for students at schools with very high
cohort loan default rates.'') (emphasis added).
\92\ Contrast the prohibition on Department regulations in 20
U.S.C. 1015b(i), regarding student access to affordable course
materials. See id. (``The Secretary shall not promulgate regulations
with respect to this section.'').
\93\ See Ass'n of Priv. Colleges & Universities v. Duncan, 870
F. Supp. 2d 133, 147 (D.D.C. 2012). In that case, the court
recognized that the ``statutory cohort default rule . . . does not
prevent the Department from adopting the debt measures'' for GE
programs. Id. (citing Career Coll. Ass'n v. Riley, 74 F.3d 1265,
1272-75 (D.C. Cir. 1996), for the proposition that the Department's
authority to establish ```reasonable standards of financial
responsibility and appropriate institutional capability' empowers it
to promulgate a rule that measures an institution's administrative
capability by reference to its cohort default rate--even though the
administrative test differs significantly from the statutory cohort
default rate test.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GE program accountability rules are also consistent with other
provisions of the HEA aimed at curbing abuses in the title IV, HEA
programs. For example, Congress capped the amount of title IV revenues
that proprietary institutions could receive at 85 percent in the 1992
HEA reauthorization as a condition of institutional eligibility, with
subsequent changes that increased the percentage to 90 percent and that
tied a loss of eligibility to two years of failing the 90 percent
measure instead of one year. More recently, Congress also expanded the
definition of Federal education funds to include military benefits to
service members and families as a part of the funds included in the 90
percent limit. The 90/10 provisions were put in place to require
proprietary institutions to generate some revenue from non-Federal
sources. Those changes fit within a larger framework where Congress
also specified that a participating ``institution will not provide any
commission, bonus, or other incentive payment based directly or
indirectly on success in securing enrollments or financial aid to any
persons or entities engaged in any student recruiting or admission
activities or in making decisions regarding the award of student
financial assistance.'' \94\ Additionally, to prevent schools from
improperly inducing people to enroll, Congress prohibited participating
institutions from engaging in a ``substantial misrepresentation of the
nature of its educational program, its financial charges, or the
employability of its graduates.'' \95\ Congress also required a minimum
level of State oversight of eligible schools. The GE program
accountability rules adopted here are consistent and compatible with
such additional and separate regulations, including those that apply to
institutions that seek eligibility for title IV, HEA support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ 20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(20). As one court explained, ``The
concern is that recruiters paid by the head are tempted to sign up
poorly qualified students who will derive little benefit from the
subsidy and may be unable or unwilling to repay federally guaranteed
loans.'' United States ex rel. Main v. Oakland City Univ., 426 F.3d
914, 916 (7th Cir. 2005).
\95\ 20 U.S.C. 1094(c)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters asserted that the Department is
misinterpreting the GE program statutory language and suggested that
the language is better read as referring to the type and content of the
program an institution is offering rather than measuring any outcomes
of the program graduates. Other commenters similarly stated that
``gainful employment'' was intended to refer to the nature of the
employment associated with the training and not any type of outcome-
based framework, noting that outcome-based standards provide no basis
for new programs to establish eligibility under the HEA before there
would be any program outcomes to measure. Another commenter referred to
administrative decisions from the Department that also described GE
programs as types of programs leading to recognized occupations. One
commenter claimed that the Department has previously defined the phrase
``gainful employment in a recognized occupation'' in the context of
conducting administrative hearings and argued that the Department did
not adequately explain in the NPRM why it was departing from its prior
use of the term.
Discussion: The GE program accountability framework builds on the
Department's regulation of institutions participating in the title IV,
HEA programs to protect students and taxpayers, as Congress authorized.
For reasons given in this document and the NPRM,\96\ the Department is
adopting GE rules that consider program performance in eligibility
determinations for GE programs. The Department disagrees with the
commenters' claims that the GE provisions address program content and
curriculum alone. Whatever the extent of the Department's authority to
consider GE program content--and the Department is not asserting such
authority in these GE rules--the Department may assess GE program
performance through student outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ 88 FR 32300, 32344 (May 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the rules adopted here allow for new as well as
existing GE programs. Although parts of the GE rules are performance-
based, these rules will not exclude programs from title IV, HEA
eligibility until they build a track record to evaluate them. The
Department must have student outcomes data to measure program
performance, which can only come after a period of time. Moreover, the
rules are designed as reasonable, minimum standards whereby title IV,
HEA eligibility as a GE program is not precluded until a program fails
one of the two GE metrics in two out of three consecutive years for
which the Department can issue results. Under these rules, new programs
that otherwise qualify as GE programs do not have to show performance
results that are not yet available.
We further disagree that a previous administrative decision on GE
program eligibility forecloses the adoption of these final rules. The
Department would not be prevented from changing its position in this
rulemaking, of course, even if an older agency decision during an
administrative adjudication conflicted with our decision here. We
provide numerous and extensive reasons for the rules that we are
adopting. But in this instance, no such conflict exists. The argument
was vetted and rejected more than 10 years ago. Challenging the 2011
Prior Rule and referring to a decision by an administrative law judge
(ALJ), the Association of Private Colleges and Universities contended
that the Department previously defined gainful employment in a
recognized occupation in a manner that conflicted with those outcome-
based rules. The adjudication involved the question whether a program
in Jewish culture prepared students enrolled in the program for gainful
employment in a recognized occupation. As the court understood, the ALJ
did not purport to comprehensively decide what it means to prepare a
student for gainful employment in a recognized occupation; instead the
ALJ merely stated that any preparation must be for a specific area of
employment.\97\
[[Page 70019]]
Therefore, the Department did not depart from the ALJ's interpretation
when the Department adopted outcome-based measures for GE programs in
the 2011 Prior Rule.\98\ Nor is the Department departing from that
interpretation with these regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities
(APSCU) v. Duncan, 870 F. Supp. 2d 133, 150 (D.D.C. 2012). The
adjudication involved the question whether a program in Jewish
culture prepared students enrolled in the program for gainful
employment in a recognized occupation.
\98\ See id. In any event, the Department has provided ample
reasons for disagreeing with narrower positions on the GE provisions
and in favor of its positions on outcome-based measures, as
reflected in these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters argued that the Department does not
provide adequate reasons for changing approaches from the 2019 Prior
Rule, which rescinded the 2014 Prior Rule.
Discussion: We discussed departures from the 2019 rescission in the
``Background'' section of the NPRM.\99\ Specifically, the Department
remains concerned about the same problems documented in the 2011 and
2014 Prior Rules. Too many borrowers struggle to repay their loans, and
the RIA shows these problems are more prevalent among programs where
graduates have high debts relative to their income, and where graduates
have low earnings. The Department recognizes that, given the high cost
of education and correspondingly high need for student debt, students,
families, institutions, and the public have an acute interest in
knowing whether higher education investments payoff through positive
repayment and earnings outcomes for graduates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ 88 FR 32300, 32306-11 (May 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asserted that the Department's 2019 action
to rescind the 2014 GE regulation created a serious reliance interest,
which will cause institutions to incur costs to comply with the
requirements in this final rule. Another commenter noted that there is
little correlation between the earnings data the Department relied upon
in the NPRM RIA and the earnings data that has been posted on College
Scorecard. This commenter believed that institutions have a reliance
interest in how the Department has previously measured debt and
earnings.
Discussion: The NPRM contained a Reliance Interests section,\100\
where the Department acknowledged and considered reliance interests
generally. We reiterate and reaffirm here that the Department's prior
regulatory actions would not have encouraged reasonable reliance on any
particular regulatory position.\101\ The 2019 Prior Rule was issued to
rescind the 2014 Prior Rule at a point when no program had yet been
denied title IV, HEA eligibility as a GE program due to failing GE
outcome measures over multiple years. Thus, institutions that were
operating programs with title IV, HEA support at the time of the 2019
rescission could not have reasonably relied on continuing eligibility
based on their title IV support between the 2014 and 2019 Prior Rules,
and in any case the absence of eligibility denials limited the
practical differences across rule changes for institutions and other
interested parties. As we discuss elsewhere in this document, including
the RIA, we do anticipate positive effects from this final rule, but we
also observe that effects such as ineligibility of GE programs for
participation in title IV, HEA will not occur immediately. Institutions
and others will have some time to adjust. Furthermore, as various
circumstances have changed, in law and otherwise, and as more
information and further analyses have emerged, the Department's
position and rules have changed since the 2011 Prior Rule. Such
alterations in rules do not establish a firmly stable foundation on
which interested parties may develop reasonable and legitimate reliance
interests in a particular set of rules that they prefer. In any event,
we find no reasonable reliance interest in the 2019 rescission
persisting such that the Department could not revise its approach and,
for example, observe meaningful performance-based limits on the
eligibility of gainful employment programs for title IV, HEA
participation. The commenters did not offer useful evidence or other
bases on which the Department could reasonably conclude that asserted
reliance interests, as to the prior rules or the College Scorecard, are
real and significant rather than theoretical and speculative. On
balance, the reliance interests asserted by the commenters have not
changed our position that there are no plausible reliance interests
that are strong enough to lead us to fundamentally alter these final
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ 88 FR 32300, 32316 (May 19, 2023).
\101\ Our conclusions regarding reliance interests are guided by
judicial opinions including FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.,
556 U.S. 502, 515-16 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
General Comments on the Financial Value Transparency Framework
(Sec. Sec. , 668.43, 668.401, 668.402, 668.403, 668.404, 668.405,
668.406, 668.407, 668.408, and 668.409)
General Support and Opposition
Comments: We received many comments expressing support for the
financial value transparency framework as a means of protecting
students and improving higher education outcomes. Commenters urged
prioritizing the establishment of the program information website so
that students have clear information about the institutions and
programs they are attending or considering attending. These commenters
supported efforts that would help students identify ``high-debt-
burden'' and ``low-earning'' programs and urged the Department to keep
these strong transparency provisions in the final rule to protect
students and taxpayers. Several commenters argued that this information
would allow students to make informed decisions about their education.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for their support. Under Sec.
668.43(d)(1), the Department will provide, through a website hosted by
the Department, program-level information on the typical earnings
outcomes for graduates and their borrowing amounts, cost of attendance,
and sources of financial aid for all programs where it can be
calculated to help students make more informed choices. We agree that
this information will help students make more informed choices and
allow taxpayers and other stakeholders to better monitor whether public
and private resources are being well used.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters supported the proposed transparency
framework as a way to provide prospective students with relevant
information about the programs and professions they may wish to pursue.
Commenters noted that it was often difficult for students to understand
total college costs in comparison to employment rates and post-graduate
earnings and said that the information provided in the transparency
framework could fill in some information gaps for students. Some
commenters believed that this platform would, over time, encourage
students to select the institutions and programs that are more likely
to meet their needs and standards. Other commenters noted that
interests in certain job fields drive career paths, so some students
would not be interested in information about different programs that
offered higher pay.
[[Page 70020]]
Discussion: We appreciate the comments recognizing the benefits to
students and families that the increased transparency framework will
provide in conjunction with information institutions provide about
programs and services they offer.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asserted that we need more empirical
evidence that publishing data will change student outcomes. Other
commenters suggested that interests in certain job fields drive career
paths, so some students would not be interested in information about
different programs that offered higher pay.
Discussion: The Department discussed the substantial evidence base
around the role of transparency and student choice in postsecondary
education in the NPRM and in the ``Outcome Differences Across
Programs'' section of RIA.\102\ Information does not always sway
student choice, but research suggests that providing students with
comparable, timely information from a trusted source can influence
their decisions.\103\ The Department believes that the financial value
transparency framework serves as an evidence-based approach to provide
relevant, trusted, and timely information for student decision-making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ 88 FR 32300, 32322 (May 19, 2023).
\103\ Steffel, Mary, Kramer, Dennis A. II, McHugh, Walter &
Ducoff, Nick (2019). Information Disclosure and College Choice. The
Brookings Institution (www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/ES-11.23.20-Steffel-et-al-1.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We understand that some students may be committed to pursuing a
particular field and may not be swayed by information about other
fields. But as the data in this RIA demonstrate, there are vast
differences in earnings and debt outcomes for programs with the same
credential level and field, and we anticipate that students already
committed to a particular degree will benefit from being able to find
programs with the best outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters argued that the certain terms used in
the NPRM to label programs that do not pass the D/E rates or EP
measures could mislead students or misrepresent other positive aspects
of the program. Commenters identified terms like ``high debt burden''
or ``low earning'' as overly pejorative.
Discussion: The D/E rates thresholds are based on research into how
much debt service payments are affordable based on an individual's
earnings. Programs do not meet the D/E criteria when a program's
discretionary D/E rate is above 20 percent, and the annual D/E rate is
above 8 percent. As discussed in the NPRM, the discretionary D/E rate
threshold is based on research conducted by economists Sandy Baum and
Saul Schwartz,\104\ and the annual D/E rate threshold is grounded in
mortgage-underwriting standards. While the rules do not require the
Department to use particular labels to describe the outcomes of
programs under the D/E rates measure, we intend to use clear
descriptive language to communicate these outcomes to students. For
example, informing students that such programs are ``high debt burden''
provides context for the amount of debt that the student will take on
relative to their early career earnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Baum, Sandy & Schwartz, Saul (2006). How Much Debt is Too
Much? Defining Benchmarks for Managing Student Debt (eric.ed.gov/?id=ED562688).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the EP threshold is based on the median earnings of high
school graduates in the labor force in the institution's State. When
the median earnings for graduates from a postsecondary program are
lower than this threshold, terming the program, for example, ``low
earning'' is appropriate. The Department views these terms as examples
of clear and transparent descriptors for potential students; we believe
that less direct phrasing would make it harder for students to
interpret the information. However, while the Department believes that
students should be informed about the consequences of their choices in
programs, we will consider adding language to the Department's program
information website noting that the debt and earnings outcomes of
programs are a subset of the myriad of factors students may consider
important in deciding where to attend.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the Department and the
stakeholder community further discuss the application of the D/E rates
and earnings premium metrics to all programs at all institutions before
addressing the issue of student acknowledgments. This commenter noted
that the required reporting of data will add costs and burden to
institutions, particularly under-resourced institutions.
Discussion: The Department disagrees that the decision to apply
financial value transparency metrics to programs across sectors and
credential levels requires any further discussion. Because students
consider both GE and non-GE programs when making postsecondary
enrollment choices, providing comparable information for students would
help them find the program that best meets their needs across any
sector. As discussed under ``Reporting'' above, while we are sensitive
to the fiscal and logistical needs of institutions, we maintain that
any burden on institutions to meet the reporting requirements is
outweighed by the benefits of the transparency and accountability
frameworks of the regulations to students, prospective students, their
families, and the public.
Changes: None.
Financial Outcomes and Other Outcomes
Comments: Many commenters posited that although economic mobility
is an important factor to many students, the value of higher education
extends beyond purely financial benefits and the Department should
recognize on the program information website, and on related warnings
and acknowledgments, that there are many ways to measure the value of
postsecondary education, such as increased civic participation and
engagement; better health and well-being; increased sense of work
engagement; lower reliance upon social safety-net programs; decreased
rates of incarceration; decreased risk of homelessness; increased
personal security; improved social status; and sense of personal
achievement. Commenters said that focusing on program earnings for all
programs promoted a false equivalency that all educational programs
should be measured on this basis. Some other commenters noted earnings
may not fully capture the value of benefits, such as health insurance,
and job amenities, such as a flexible schedule.
One commenter further cited a study \105\ highlighting additional
individual and societal benefits of higher education, such as increased
likelihood of employment; improved health choices; increased
volunteerism; increased neighborhood interactions and trust; and
intergenerational benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ Trostel, Philip (2015). It's Not Just the Money: The
Benefits of College Education to Individuals and to Society. LUMINA
Foundation (www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-just-the-money.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noting the numerous non-pecuniary benefits of postsecondary
education, several commenters expressed concern that the nature of the
D/E rates and EP measures is too simple to adequately reflect the full
value of an education and one commenter opined that measuring a
program's value based solely on the D/E rates and EP measures would be
arbitrary and capricious. Many commenters noted that the D/E rates
measure is not the only metric that can be used to assess the value of
[[Page 70021]]
postsecondary programs and suggested that things like holistic value,
social impact, import of work, or long-term economic value could also
be used to measure the value of programs.
Discussion: The Department is not attempting to assess the full
value of the education that programs provide based only on their debt
and earnings outcomes through the D/E rates and EP measures. The
Department recognizes that not all of the benefits of a postsecondary
education are measurable or captured by debt and earnings, but low
earnings or high debt burdens can significantly impact even those
students who benefitted in other ways from their programs.
Further, while the Department agrees there are aspects of job
quality that are distinct from earnings, we believe that earnings,
which unlike non-monetary compensation can be calculated consistently
for most graduates through administrative data sources, is the best way
to capture the employment outcomes of program graduates for purposes of
implementing the gainful employment statutory requirement. For
instance, in most cases non-monetary compensation does not aid in
assessing the ability of graduates to afford repayment of student debt.
The financial value transparency framework aims to provide
transparency to students about dimensions of the financial consequences
of attending postsecondary programs. In particular, these measures will
be used to convey information to students about the typical costs,
borrowing, and earnings outcomes for students who graduate from a
program, and whether typical students who complete the program end up
with high-debt-burdens, and therefore may be at elevated risk for
associated adverse borrower outcomes. On the Department's program
information website, a program's outcomes under the D/E rates and EP
metrics will be provided to students alongside other financial value
information to help students understand how the program may help in
achieving their goals. As a steward of taxpayer funds charged with
ensuring the proper administration of the title IV, HEA programs, the
Department seeks to require that students are aware of such information
before they enroll in programs with high-debt burdens. For non-GE
programs, we do not limit aid or eligibility for such programs but
allow students to decide whether, upon considering this information,
the program has value to them.
Change: None.
Comments: Commenters also suggested that focusing on relative
education debt could harm some students by encouraging them to limit
education loan borrowing by sacrificing basic needs like food and
housing or promoting some type of employment even when attending school
full time.
Discussion: We believe it is reasonable for students to know what
the average education debt and earnings are for an educational program
and believe that this information can be considered along with many of
the other factors suggested by the commenters. The information the
Department will present is not describing debt as bad or to be avoided.
Rather, it is giving students information about how affordable their
debt payments will be based on the typical earnings of students in
their programs. Students deserve to be aware of this information, and
institutions have the capacity to control their pricing to avoid
subjecting their students to unaffordable debts.
Changes: None.
Potential Impacts on Lower Earning Fields
Comments: Commenters suggested that focusing on program earnings
takes a narrow view that higher education is primarily about securing a
job and misses the value of a liberal arts education and the value to
society from those graduates. Some commenters emphasized that many
students pursue careers in fields that help people such as social work,
counseling, leadership, teaching, and a variety of cosmetology programs
including hairstylists and estheticians. Nursing was another field
where commenters noted that some institutions prepare instructors and
practitioners to work in health care services where some jobs would not
produce high earnings. Commenters also suggested that teaching programs
should be excluded from application of the GE program accountability
framework.
Discussion: The Department does not agree that providing
information about education debt and average earnings for program
graduates to students and families ignores the value of programs that
may have lower earnings outcomes. Again, the Department is attempting
to make debt and earnings information available to students and
families on a comparable basis for programs so that they can use it to
support the different career choices that may be under consideration,
or to find a program within a particular field that is most beneficial
to them.
As we demonstrate in Table 4.11 in the RIA, most programs in most
fields pass the D/E rates measure, including programs that provide
training for occupations in healthcare. In healthcare (Health
Professions and Related)--the program cited by the commenters--8.2
percent of GE programs did not pass the D/E rates or the EP measure and
2.0 percent of non-GE programs did not pass the D/E rates or the EP
measure. Similarly, education training programs (i.e., programs with a
two-digit CIP code of 13) are less likely to fail the D/E rates or EP
measure than other programs. We note that teaching programs that
successfully place their students in teaching jobs are unlikely to fail
to meet the earnings premium criteria. For example, data from the
National Education Association's Teacher Salary Benchmark Report
indicates that among reporting school districts, approximately 76
percent of teachers worked at schools that offered a starting teaching
salary of at least $40,000.\106\ Even States with lower salaries have
average starting salaries at least $5,000 higher than the State's EP
threshold.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ See Nat'l Ed. Ass'n (2022). Teacher Salary Benchmarks
(www.nea.org/resource-library/teacher-salary-benchmarks).
\107\ See Nat'l Ed. Ass'n (2022). Teacher Salary Benchmarks
(www.nea.org/resource-library/teacher-salary-benchmarks).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department fundamentally disagrees that ignoring the financial
implications of students' college choices is an acceptable or necessary
strategy to ensure that students pursue jobs in critical fields to
society.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters contended that publication of the
financial value metrics could limit access to, or discourage students
from enrolling in, arts and performing arts programs. These commenters
stressed that these careers should be available to all and not just to
affluent students who can attend without Federal financial aid.
Discussion: The Department believes that students of arts programs
will benefit from consistent information about the typical debt and
earnings experienced by a program graduate, particularly if the D/E
outcomes for program graduates are in a range associated with high
likelihood of student loan default. For non-GE programs, receiving this
information does not preclude their ability to attend the program--it
simply alerts them to the potential risk based on the program's
students' outcomes. Approximately 12 percent of arts programs are GE
programs.
Arts programs that fall under GE regulation have a failure rate
that is similar to GE programs overall. According to the Program
Performance Data (PPD) described in Table 4.11 of
[[Page 70022]]
the RIA, 5.3 percent of all GE programs fail due to D/E, EP, or both.
Among the 1,042 GE arts programs (programs with a two-digit CIP code of
50), a similar share, 5.5 percent, have a failing status. Among the
7,518 arts programs that are non-GE programs, failure rates are
slightly higher than for programs overall, but still relatively low.
Using the PPD, 1.2 percent of all non-GE programs fail debt-to-earnings
(DTE), EP, or both, and 3.7 percent of arts programs fail.
Although commenters acknowledged that arts careers are financially
undercompensated relative to other career paths, federally aided
students enrolled in arts programs tend to come from backgrounds
similar to students enrolled in other programs, indicating that, among
federally aided students, students from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds are not currently dissuaded from pursuing a career in the
arts. For example, the share of students who are Pell recipients within
arts programs is broadly similar to the share of recipients overall
across programs (Table 1.1). Institutions that are concerned that
financial transparency will dissuade students from lower-income
backgrounds from pursuing arts degrees could take steps such as
packaging additional aid for students pursuing arts programs. This
would decrease the risk of a high DTE and potentially mitigate the
effect of lower typical salaries in the first few years of an arts
career.
Table 1.1--Mean and Median Pell Share, Across Programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All programs Arts programs (CIP2 = 50)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
Mean (%) Median (%) programs Mean (%) Median (%) programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credential Level: Undergraduate......................... .............. .............. 18,033 .............. .............. 453
(UG) Certificates....................................... 53 60 .............. 45 40 ..............
Associate........................................... 61 67 25,807 64 69 1,248
Bachelor's.......................................... 38 36 47,643 41 40 3,792
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 47 50 91,483 47 48 5,493
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2022 Program Performance Data.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters expressed concern that the focus on debt-
to-earnings and earnings could lead students and prospective students
to prioritize salary over public service. By publishing these data and
possibly categorizing certain programs as ``low value,'' we may
discourage students from pursuing careers that are less lucrative but
that have substantial value, such as careers in government or the
nonprofit sector.
Discussion: The Department acknowledges the concern that students
may be dissuaded from pursing programs, and ultimately, careers, that
are primarily in the public sector or with nonprofit organizations.
National data from the American Community Survey (ACS) on earnings by
sector show, however, that the typical associate or bachelor's degree
graduate working for government or a nonprofit substantially out-earns
similarly aged workers with only a high school credential (Table 1.1).
We estimate that a government worker with an associate degree has
median earnings more than $13,700 higher than the overall median
earnings for those with a high school diploma. A government worker with
a bachelor's degree has earnings that are more than $19,100 higher.
Those working in the nonprofit sector earn around $7,100 (associate)
and $15,200 (bachelor's degree) more relative to similar workers with a
high school diploma.
Table 1.2--Median Earnings, Workers in Labor Force Age 25-34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal,
Credential Overall Private sector state, or Nonprofit
local govt. sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High School or Equivalent....................... $25,453 $25,569 $31,961 $21,582
Associate Degree................................ 32,049 31,961 39,200 32,580
Bachelor's Degree............................... 45,811 48,870 44,638 40,725
Graduate Degree................................. 49,639 52,147 47,941 45,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: American Community Survey, 2019, 5-year estimates.
These data indicate that workers within a given degree level tend
to have relatively similar earnings across private sector, government,
and nonprofit employers. And for those with an associate degree,
employment within a Federal, State, or local government yields higher
median earnings than employment in the private sector. While working in
the private sector is more lucrative, at the median, for bachelor's
degree and graduate degree holders, these differences are much smaller
than the difference relative to the earnings premium threshold at the
national level.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters expressed concern that publication of
financial value metrics could deter students from graduate education.
Given differences in student loan eligibility and available Federal
aid, commenters suggest that the proposed financial value metrics do
not align well with the goals and earnings trajectories of those who
enroll in graduate education.
Discussion: The Department aims to provide students with accurate
information to help inform their choices. We acknowledge that some
students might decide that not attending school might be the best
option after obtaining the information.
Graduate students are eligible to borrow up to the cost of
attendance for their program, while undergraduates are subject to
substantially lower limits on borrowing, depending on their enrollment
level and status as a
[[Page 70023]]
dependent or independent student. Because of the increased eligibility
for student loans and their generally higher earnings outcomes,
graduate programs that do not pass the GE thresholds typically fail the
D/E standard of the GE rule, rather than the EP.
The Department believes that the D/E metric is valid across both
undergraduate and graduate programs. As noted above, few graduate
programs have median earnings below the typical high school student,
but many programs have very high debt levels due to the lack of loan
limits. This can make debt unaffordable even on a middle-class salary.
Moreover, from a taxpayer perspective, as shown in Table 2.10 of the
RIA, D/E is highly correlated with the taxpayer subsidy on student
loans--if debt is high relative to earnings, it is unlikely a borrower
will fully payoff their loans while on an income driven repayment plan.
The Department also notes aspects of the rule that are favorable to
graduate programs. First, the debt used in the actual D/E calculations
will be capped at the total net cost for tuition, fees, and books. This
cap particularly affects graduate programs, as many graduate students
borrow substantially for living costs in addition to direct costs of
the program. As we note in the RIA, we do not have data reported by
institutions to estimate directly how this cap will affect the share of
programs that pass the D/E rates. An analysis by New America, however,
suggests that the debt cap might reduce the number of graduate programs
projected to fail in the RIA substantially by about 50 percent.\108\
Because institutions have more control over direct program costs, some
institution concerns about graduate financial value metrics will likely
be mitigated. Furthermore, in the D/E rates calculation, graduate debt
is amortized over a 15-year repayment period for master's degree
programs and over a 20-year period for doctoral and first professional
degrees. The use of a longer repayment period acknowledges the
possibility that long term earnings are higher in proportion to
earnings measured 3 years after graduation, the potentially larger
amounts of debt that some graduate students may take on and allows for
smaller annual payments based on a longer repayment period. We address
additional concerns relevant to graduate programs, such as licensing
and residencies for graduate programs that may result in lower initial
earnings due to externally imposed constraints, in other sections of
this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ See Caldwell, Tia & Garza, Roxanne (2023). Previous
Projections Overestimated Gainful Employment Failures: Almost All
HBCUs & MSI Graduate Programs Pass. New America (https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/ge-failures-overestimated/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters noted that many jobs in the entertainment
industry may be impacted by the financial value and transparency
regulations, given that a number of students in those fields are
dependent upon Federal education assistance. The commenters suggested
that those students may become more restricted in their opportunities
to pursue careers in performing arts, music and education compared to
students from more affluent families. Commenters noted that in general,
the United States provides less support for students of the performing
arts compared to other countries, and further opined that the lower
wage for these jobs is beyond the control of the institutions providing
those programs, notwithstanding the contributions those jobs make
toward creativity and societal wellbeing.
Discussion: We recognize that educational programs can provide long
term value and enrichment to students in multiple ways, and that some
student may be interested in arts and entertainment careers for non-
pecuniary reasons. We nonetheless note that the education debt and
program earnings experienced by program graduates at specific
institutions are a significant up-front consideration for any student
to consider. Students looking at particular programs offered at
multiple institutions may also consider the relative education debt and
program earnings when selecting an institution. Institutions may also
use the information about average education debt and earnings to
consider program changes that would better serve students entering into
careers with relatively large education debt compared to the near-term
earnings. We appreciate the commenters' concerns about the level of
support for performing arts relative to other countries, but
respectfully note that such broader issues of the economic and social
value of performing arts are beyond the scope of this rule.
Changes: None.
Data Concerns and Other Information or Metrics
Comments: Several commenters suggested including measures of
student satisfaction among the other measures listed in Sec.
668.43(d)(1)(ii) to include on the program information website to
provide context for the financial value measures.
Discussion: We recognize that there are many factors students
consider when choosing to enroll, or continue, in a program, and also
that education can confer many benefits beyond financial value,
including satisfaction with the program. However, we are here focused
on factors that affect students' financial well-being, and the return
on the title IV, HEA financial investment. Low earnings and high debt
burdens can negatively affect students who might benefit in other ways
from their programs. More generally, measures of student satisfaction
do not exist for all programs and the Department has no way of
collecting such data in a systematic fashion at present.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters noted that program-level graduation
rates could have a substantial impact on financial value measures. They
noted that a program that graduates a small share of enrolled students
may have strong financial value measures, but overall financial value
results may be poor for those who never completed the program. The
commenters suggested that we provide information on the likelihood of
completing the program as important context for the financial value
metrics.
Discussion: The financial value metrics measure the earnings and
debt only for those who complete a given program. The Department
believes that these measures best represent the outcomes for a student
who naturally anticipates to complete a given program. Enrolled
students who do not complete could have outcomes that are worse overall
than those for completers, but this is not necessarily the case. For
example, non-completers could leave a program because they were offered
a job that pays more than they anticipate they would earn if they
completed their program. Further, those who do not complete a program
are likely to leave with less debt than those who do, potentially
lowering D/E measures.
At present, program-level graduation rates are not consistently
measured or collected by the Department. Measurement of program
graduation rates raises several measurement challenges.\109\ For
example, some bachelor's degree programs do not formally consider a
student part of a program or major until their sophomore or junior
year, which could substantially skew the graduation rate relative to a
program which counts students starting from their freshman
[[Page 70024]]
year. Still, the Department strongly agrees with the importance of
holding institutions accountable for program completion and will
explore development of accurate measures. The rule includes completion
rates at the institution or program level among a set of important
contextual information that may be included on the program information
website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Blagg, Kristin & Rainer, Macy (2020). Measuring Program-
Level Completion Rates: A Demonstration of Metrics Using Virginia
Higher Education Data. Urban Institute: Washington, DC
(www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/101636/measuring_program-level_completion_rates_1_3.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters requested that the Department include on
the program information website information on cohort default rates, or
a program's loan repayment rates, as additional context regarding a
student's ability to manage or repay their debt.
Discussion: We agree that a program's loan repayment rate may be
important information for students or taxpayers, and we note that this
information was included in the list of proposed information under
Sec. 668.43(d)(1).
Although the cohort default rate (CDR) is an important measure of
institutional accountability in ensuring that students do not
experience exceptionally high default rates after leaving a program, an
overall CDR does not measure outcomes of a given program. Moreover,
graduate PLUS loans are not included as part of the CDR calculation, so
these rates do not capture borrowers' outcomes even for broad sets of
graduate programs. The Department will carefully consider what borrower
outcome information will provide students with the clearest sense of
the financial risks of their program choices, including whether
institution level measures may be appropriate to provide where program
level measures may be unavailable.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters noted that high percentages of their
career program graduates work in the fields associated with their
training, unlike many students with associate degrees from public and
nonprofit institutions that get jobs in unrelated fields. Commenters
also noted that other jobs such as sales often start with lower
salaries that increase over time as they learn their trades on the job.
Discussion: The regulations do not track earnings by source but
provide some measure of the average education debt and average earnings
that program graduates have. Graduates of career training programs who
work in those fields may experience higher earnings than program
graduates from nonprofit and public institutions who work in unrelated
fields. The regulations will provide students considering either type
of program with information about the education debt and earnings
associated with those programs to support them making better informed
choices when they enroll.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asserted that 4-year degree programs can
charge students higher prices despite having no industry connections. A
few other commenters noted that many students in 4-year programs are
unable to get jobs, while students in shorter career and technical
education (CTE) programs (which cost less) are able to get jobs.
Discussion: We agree that CTE programs are important. By ensuring
that programs subject to the GE program eligibility requirements,
including CTE programs, prepare students for gainful employment in a
recognized occupation, we expect that the GE program accountability
framework will drive improvements in CTE programs that are not
providing students with earnings that allow them to afford their debt
or leaving them better off than if they had not pursued a postsecondary
credential. For 4-year programs that are not subject to the GE program
accountability framework, students will be able to obtain critical
information about their financial value, including their costs and
student debt and earnings outcomes, to inform their education decision
making.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters suggested that the Department should play
a role identifying unique missions of institutions, such as
historically black colleges and universities and Tribal colleges and
universities because of the social and cultural impacts these
institutions provide as non-financial value.
Discussion: Under Sec. 668.43(d)(1), the Department will provide,
through a website hosted by the Department, program-level information
on the typical earnings outcomes for graduates and their borrowing
amounts, cost of attendance, and sources of financial aid to help
students make more informed choices and allow taxpayers and other
stakeholders to better monitor whether public and private resources are
being well used. Nothing in the regulations precludes institutions from
supplementing the financial value information provided on the
Department website with additional information about the institution
and its programs, including information for students and families about
their missions and values. However, the Department website will be
focused on financial value, consistent with the Department's obligation
to administer the title IV, HEA financial assistance programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters noted that the debt and earnings data
used in the financial value transparency metrics do not precisely align
with those measures presented in the College Scorecard.
Discussion: The financial value transparency metrics are designed
for accountability purposes (with respect to GE programs) as well as
for transparency (with respect to GE and eligible non-GE programs).
Because these data serve different, though complementary, purposes the
metrics are not quite the same as those in the College Scorecard
although there are strong correlations between the information in the
two datasets. For example, median earnings in this rule, similar to the
2014 Prior Rule, is calculated as the median earnings among all program
completers including the ``zeros''--i.e., individuals successfully
matched in the list of program completers who have no earnings from
employment. Especially for career training programs this measurement
choice captures whether students find employment as a measure of
program success. Similarly, median debt under this regulation is
calculated by capping individual borrowing amounts at the net direct
costs charged by the institution. This attempts to isolate student
borrowing linked to factors more directly controlled by institutions.
Still, broader measures of debt can be calculated and used for
transparency purposes. The Department will carefully consider how to
present information to students to avoid potential confusion.
Changes: None.
General Comments on the GE Program Accountability Framework (Sec. Sec.
600.10, 600.21, 668.91, 668.601, 668.602, 668.603, 668.604, 668.605,
and 668.606)
General Support and Opposition
Comments: Many commenters expressed support for building on the
2014 GE Prior Rule, including the addition of the earnings premium
metric. These commenters believed that this metric would ensure that
students only enroll in programs that would result in them being
gainfully employed upon completing the program. Commenters also
supported the inclusion of the D/E rates metric, arguing that this
measure would protect taxpayers and students. Some commenters suggested
that because of the rule, students will shift from enrolling at low-
performing programs to programs with better outcomes, including
shifting across sectors, similar
[[Page 70025]]
to what happened when institutions with high cohort default rates lost
eligibility to participate in the Federal student aid programs.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asserted that these regulations would help
to protect students from taking on high levels of debt to obtain
credentials with little to no value. The commenter also contended that
there should be greater consequences for schools that commit fraud.
Discussion: We agree there should be greater consequences for
schools that commit fraud. The Department's Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) identifies and investigates fraud, waste, abuse, and
criminal activity involving Department funds. Where we believe it is
warranted, we can refer a situation to the OIG, which conducts criminal
and civil investigations. Additionally, members of the public may
report suspected fraud, waste, abuse, or criminal activity--including
fraud or misuse of Federal student aid funds. The OIG maintains a
telephone hotline and an online form to facilitate submission of such
reports.
While these regulations do not replace other robust Department
efforts aimed at ensuring program compliance and program integrity, the
rule should make predatory behavior less attractive and less lucrative
if poorly performing GE programs are not eligible to participate in
title IV, HEA.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters supported the GE rule because they
believe it will help stop predatory recruitment practices that
specifically target marginalized and underserved communities, including
people of color, people with low socioeconomic status, single parents,
and veterans. These commenters claimed that programs at these predatory
schools have low graduation rates, high student debt loads, high
student loan default rates, and higher tuition than comparable programs
at State and community colleges.
Several other commenters expressed support for the GE
accountability provisions, noting that most borrower defense loan
discharges have been for students who attended for-profit institutions,
and said that most accountability measures should focus on the
institutions where large costs to the taxpayers have been incurred.
Commenters noted that many completers from some for-profit institutions
have incomes that would qualify them to make zero payments under the
Department's recently proposed income-driven repayment plan and create
additional costs for taxpayers.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for their support and agree the
GE rules apply to programs where students need protection.
Changes: None.
Purpose
Comments: Many commenters noted that the EP and D/E metrics do not
capture all the ways that programs might be valuable for students and
society, and thought the measures too narrowly focused on financial
outcomes.
Discussion: In the GE program accountability framework, we use the
EP and D/E metrics to assess whether programs are preparing students
for gainful employment, consistent with statutory eligibility
requirements. But, the use of particular performance metrics pursuant
to the GE provisions of the HEA and the Department's rulemaking
authority is not a commentary on the values that students and others
may place on postsecondary education. As we demonstrate in Table 4.11
of the RIA, the majority of programs in most fields do not lead to high
debt burdens or low earnings. As a result, we do not expect the rule to
deprive students of postsecondary options that offer the nonfinancial
benefits of greatest importance to them.
We underscore that the rule sets minimum standards of performance
for career training programs, and for informing students in non-GE
programs about potential financial risk. It does not attempt to
distinguish among or rate programs based on their earnings above these
standards beyond providing students with information. As such, we
expect that programs meeting these minimum thresholds of financial
outcomes for their students will still need to demonstrate how they
help students in pursuing other goals that may be important to them.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters suggested that the proposed GE program
accountability framework will not fix the current systemic problems.
Some commenters proposed that, rather than targeting so-called ``low
value programs,'' we should address systemic issues contributing to the
student debt crisis. For example, these commenters suggested that we
provide adequate funding and resources to public institutions,
implement more affordable tuition models, and expand financial literacy
programs.
Discussion: The Department agrees that some systemic changes are
needed to address the student debt crisis. And, in a variety of
initiatives, the Department is responding to that crisis. For example,
the Department recently published a new rule on IDR plans for student
loans. Notwithstanding the importance of addressing systemic issues,
the Department is charged with implementing and enforcing the HEA
limits on title IV eligibility for GE programs and has concluded that
programs that leave students unable to pay off their loans, or with
earnings no greater than a comparable high school graduate, are not
meeting the statutory requirements for title IV, HEA funding. The final
rule will make meaningful strides in deterring students from attending
programs that leave them with unaffordable debt and no improvement to
their earnings. As noted in Tables 4.25 and 4.26 of the RIA, most
students have available many alternative programs that do not fail the
metrics, and these programs are very likely to lead to higher earnings
and lower debt. Therefore, we expect the rule will result in students
attending programs that require less borrowing or provide a better
financial value in that they will lead to higher earnings relative to
the amounts borrowed.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters suggested that it would be more effective
to limit borrowing in low-performing programs rather than to remove all
Federal funding, noting that this would still protect students from
high educational debt without limiting the types of programs that are
available for them to pursue their passions and career goals in fields
that may not be high-earning. One commenter noted that students have
differing career objectives and was of the opinion that the Department
and institutions offering those programs should strike a balance to
keep these options open for students, suggesting that career counseling
and accurate information could support those outcomes and a diverse
workforce. Other commenters said that without striking a more holistic
approach in the proposed regulations, there could be reductions in
program diversity and more limited student choices available. Providing
more quality assurance measures and a broader evaluation of other
factors, such as curriculum, student satisfaction and achievements,
were suggested as additional components to use with the financial-value
measures in the proposed regulations. Commenters also suggested the
Department should work with the higher education community to develop
[[Page 70026]]
alternative metrics that speak to a more holistic spectrum of success
determinants.
Discussion: We agree there are many potential ways that students
might be shielded from unaffordable debt or programs that fail to boost
their earnings. Institutions are in the best position to limit their
costs and limit student borrowing for direct costs (the subset of
borrowing measured under the metrics in these regulations), and to
provide counseling and guidance to students in choosing programs that
prepare them for success. The Department's authority and ability to
monitor curriculum quality across programs is limited. As noted
elsewhere, these rules do not attempt to serve as a holistic measure of
program quality. Instead, they focus on setting minimum standards aimed
at ensuring that career training programs prepare students for gainful
employment, and, more generally, to protect students from programs that
may not improve their financial well-being.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter argued that controlling college costs
should not be part of the Department's role, but it should instead
concern itself with reining in lending. The commenter argued that the
Department should set aggregate loan limits for all students to current
limits for undergraduate students.
Discussion: The Department disagrees with the commenter that its
role does not include encouraging institutions to offer programs that
are financially valuable to students when the students' debt and likely
future earnings are taken into account. The Department also does not
have the ability to reduce aggregate loan limits for graduate students,
since those limits are established by statute.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters argued that it is not a school's
responsibility to ensure that a student pays back their loans.
According to these commenters, that responsibility lies with the
borrower.
Discussion: The Department believes that pursuant to the GE
statutory requirement, career training programs should be held
responsible for ensuring the amount their students need to borrow is
reasonable relative to the earnings they might expect from the career
for which they are being trained. If programs set unreasonable tuition
levels that lead students to borrow more than they can afford to repay,
this puts borrowers at risk of default and adverse impacts on their
credit and puts the taxpayer at risk of having to bear the cost of the
loans. Under the D/E rates measure, institutions are not held
responsible for loan repayment outcomes. Rather, the D/E rates portion
of the transparency framework provides a means to assess whether debt
burdens are excessive given the typical earnings of program completers,
and whether students' labor market earnings improve relative to
students who do not pursue postsecondary credentials. The GE
accountability framework applies this metric as a condition of
eligibility for career programs. As addressed below, we believe the
compliance burden created by these regulations is modest and well
justified by the benefits expected from the rule.
Changes: None.
Scope
Comments: Several commenters stated that it is unfair to group
together all private and for-profit schools when there are only a few
``bad actors'' causing problems. They asserted that these GE
regulations will punish schools that are acting in good faith, and that
there should not be a ``one-size-fits-all'' solution to these bad
actors. They argued that different regulations should apply to for-
profit and nonprofit schools since their missions differ.
Other commenters viewed the distinction between GE and non-GE
programs as unclear, and argued that instituting sanctions for some
programs, but not for others, based on sector or credential type is not
appropriate. Commenters highlighted that an institution's tax status
was not a good reason to treat programs differently under the proposed
eligibility measures and voiced some concern that institutions with
failing programs could change their tax status to avoid being held
accountable under the eligibility provisions. Some commenters said the
proposed regulations were politically motivated to target the career
training programs and suggested that more emphasis should be placed on
removing Federal funds from programs that pushed false information or
promoted activism and political agendas. The regulations were described
by these commenters as an effort to quickly eradicate the proprietary
school sector instead of proposing a set of guardrails that would have
encouraged institutions to operate within that system.
Discussion: The GE accountability framework applies to gainful
employment programs through Sec. 668.601. Section 668.2 defines
``gainful employment program'' as an educational program offered by an
institution under Sec. 668.8(c)(3) or (d) and identified by a
combination of the institution's six-digit Office of Postsecondary
Education ID (OPEID) number, the program's six-digit CIP code as
assigned by the institution or determined by the Secretary, and the
program's credential level. This definition is consistent with sections
101(b) and 102(b) and (c) of the HEA. Under the HEA, institutions must
establish program-level eligibility for each ``program of training to
prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation.''
\110\ GE programs include nearly all educational programs at for-profit
institutions of higher education, as well as non-degree programs at
public and private nonprofit institutions, such as community colleges.
With respect to comments that some institutions may change their tax
status to remove their programs from being subject to the eligibility
measures, applications to do so are reviewed independently by the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department to make sure the
institution qualifies as a nonprofit entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ 20 U.S.C. 1002(b)(1)(A)(i), (c)(1)(A). See also 20 U.S.C.
1088(b)(1)(A)(i), which refers to a recognized profession. For
further discussion in the NPRM, see 88 FR 32300, 32306-32311 (May
19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to being statutorily obligated to confirm whether GE
programs are eligible for HEA assistance, we believe that it is
appropriate to protect students in GE programs in all sectors, to help
protect students pursuing career training through such programs from
being left with unaffordable debt or with no improvement in their labor
market prospects beyond what they might have achieved without earning a
postsecondary credential. The GE accountability framework is based on
objective and evidence-based measures of student outcomes and, rather
than being a one-size-fits-all approach, its impact on institutions is
directly in proportion to the number of students they have enrolled in
programs that are not serving students well based on the D/E rates and
EP measures. The GE framework, applied as a measure of a program's
continuing title IV, HEA eligibility, will be similarly applied to all
GE programs, regardless of location or student demographics. GE
programs will be held to the standards for GE programs uniformly,
regardless of whether they are taught at public, proprietary, or
nonprofit private institutions.
The Department does not have authority to expand the definition of
a GE program to include non-GE programs. The financial value
transparency framework is the Department's attempt to account for
[[Page 70027]]
eligible non-GE programs, by providing students in such programs with
important information. Other statutory provisions apply more broadly to
GE and non-GE programs, and the Department will use the tools at its
disposal to protect students and improve outcomes. For example, we are
also addressing eligible non-GE programs through other Department
initiatives, such as the final rule we published last year on Change in
Ownership and Change in Control.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ 87 FR 65426 (Oct. 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters asserted that the Department could
require the eligibility framework to apply to all programs, based upon
the Department's authority under 20 U.S.C. 1087d(a)(4) or 20 U.S.C.
1087d(a)(6), to include additional conditions necessary to protect the
interests of the United States when approving an institution's
participation in the Direct Loan programs. Other commenters said it is
arbitrary for the Department to treat comparable programs differently
and suggested that this different treatment violated a requirement in
the HEA that the Department's regulations must be uniformly applied and
enforced.
Discussion: We disagree with the commenters' suggestions and
criticism. The Department must use its statutory authority in ways that
accord with the various distinctions drawn in the HEA. The HEA
conditions eligibility of some, but not all, programs on preparing
students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation or
profession. The commenters did not explain how those HEA provisions
regarding GE programs fit with the commenters' suggested use of the HEA
provisions regarding program participation agreements. Likewise, we
disagree with commenters' arguments regarding uniformity in Department
regulations. The commenters did not identify a basis for their
recommended conclusion in 20 U.S.C. 1232(c), which refers to uniform
application and enforcement throughout the 50 States rather than across
program types. Nor did commenters identify any other statutory
provision that requires GE program regulations to bind non-GE programs.
In addition, linking the program accountability framework to the
Department's Direct Loan authority as the commenters suggest would
exclude programs that do not participate in the Direct Loan program.
The commenters may prefer that gainful employment results be expected
of non-GE programs, and we understand the policy considerations
associated with that issue, but we lack persuasive reasons to conclude
that the Department's regulations must adopt that position as a matter
of law.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters stated that the proposed GE
Accountability framework fails to account for the significant and
multiple economic, social, and governmental differences between Puerto
Rico and the United States. For example, these commenters stressed that
Puerto Rico has no community college system and relies on proprietary
institutions to provide a significant and varied portion of career-
oriented educational opportunities. Therefore, these commenters advised
that proprietary institutions in Puerto Rico award a far higher
proportion of the island's postsecondary credentials than is the case
on the mainland. The commenters contended that the proposed rule would
place access to such programs in serious jeopardy. These same
commenters stated if implemented as-is, without accounting for Puerto
Rico's unique circumstances and challenges, the population, economy,
and multiple industries on the Island will be adversely and irreparably
harmed.
One commenter emphasized the ways in which earnings measurement
issues are more a particular concern given the unique challenges facing
Puerto Rico, stating that the justifications offered by the Department
for not including an alternate earnings appeal fail to acknowledge the
unique nature of Puerto Rico's economy. Citing the Department's claim
that making accommodation for under-reporting of income would
``differentially reward programs,'' the commenter submitted that the
desire to be evaluated based on accurate data is not a desire to be
rewarded but to address the fact that nonreporting and underreporting
of income are widely recognized challenges facing Puerto Rico.
Discussion: As we noted in the NPRM, the Department is aware that,
in some cases, using earnings data for high school graduates to
estimate an earnings threshold may not be as reliable as the earnings
data from the ACS, and welcomed comment on what data might be available
to estimate the threshold in U.S. Territories.\112\ In response to the
commenters' concerns, the Department further investigated issues of
data quality in Puerto Rico as well as other U.S. Territories and the
freely associated states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ See 88 FR 32300, 32333 (May 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through this investigation, we identified several concerns with
data elements used in the rule with regard to their application to
programs at institutions in U.S. Territories and freely associated
states. First, there is no robust source of earnings information in
most U.S. Territories that would allow us to measure high school
earnings. While we considered using a different threshold, such as 150
percent of the Federal Poverty Level, available data (data on high
school earnings from the Puerto Rico Community Survey) suggested this
approach would yield a threshold that is dramatically higher than high
school earnings. While data do exist for Puerto Rico, the coverage rate
of the Puerto Rico Community Survey (PRCS) is significantly lower than
that of the ACS.\113\ Moreover, the Federal Poverty Line (officially
known as the poverty guidelines), used in the calculation of
discretionary debt-to-earnings measures is not defined for the U.S.
Territories and freely associated states. The Federal Poverty Line is a
component of the D/E metric, used to define ``discretionary earnings''
by subtracting an estimate of the income required for necessary
expenses. As a result, the Department is not confident that the
thresholds used to determine an affordable amount of debt in the D/E
rates calculations are appropriate for programs in these locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ According to the Census, in the 2021 ACS and PRCS the
coverage rate in Puerto Rico is 80.9 percent, relative to 94.5
percent in the United States and Washington, DC. The lowest state
(Alaska) had a coverage rate of 88.0 percent. See www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/sample-size-and-data-quality/coverage-rates/index.php. These figures indicate that Puerto Rico is an outlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of these concerns, the Department will exempt all programs
located in the Territories or freely associated states from most of the
requirements in the transparency framework under subpart Q, and from
the GE accountability provisions under subpart S. We will still require
such programs to comply with the reporting requirements in Sec.
668.408, will still follow the procedures in Sec. Sec. 668.403(b) and
(d) and 668.405(b) and (c) to calculate median debt and obtain earnings
information, and will include debt, earnings, and price information on
the Department's program information website established in Sec.
668.43.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 668.401(b) to exempt the Territories
and freely associated states from the application of subpart Q, except
that such institutions remain subject to the reporting requirements in
Sec. 668.408 and the Department will follow the procedures in
Sec. Sec. 668.403(b) and (d) and 668.405(b) and (c) to calculate
median debt and obtain earnings information for their GE programs and
eligible non-GE
[[Page 70028]]
programs, and we have revised Sec. 668.601(b) to exempt the
Territories and freely associated states from application of subpart S.
Comments: Some commenters urged the Department to exempt medical
schools from the GE program accountability framework given the higher
levels of borrowing students experience in those programs and the
higher earnings later associated with those careers after physicians
complete their residencies. Similar suggestions came from commenters to
exclude law schools from the eligibility measures because the
accreditation process provides oversight of admission standards,
monitors faculty providing the coursework, reviews the academic
engagement of the students, and sets benchmarks for graduates to pass
the bar exams. These commenters believe that the law school accrediting
process ensures students obtain long-term value from their legal
education.
Discussion: As discussed in more detail in the Post-graduate
Training Requirements section of this preamble which modifies the
definition of the cohort period and adds a definition of a qualifying
graduate program in Sec. 668.2, these regulations already accommodate
the commenters' concern about medical schools, by using a longer time
horizon over which to measure graduates' earnings--six-years post-
graduation rather than three. We do not agree that the accreditation
process by itself provides adequate guardrails to ensure that students
are not left with unaffordable debt or very low earnings. This is
readily apparent in the Department's data, showing many accredited
programs leave students with unaffordable debt.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters requested that embedded certificates,
stackable credentials, and transfer associate degrees be exempted from
GE determinations because these programs are intended to combine into
larger degree programs which, for public and nonprofit institutions,
would not be subject to the GE accountability framework. One commenter
requested further clarification about the treatment of certificates
that are fully embedded into a degree program, in which students are
not able to enroll in just the certificate program. The commenter was
unsure of the extent to which a public/not-for-profit institution would
need to report on students in a certificate program that is both
embedded in a degree program and also available as a stand-alone
certificate program.
Discussion: The metrics used for evaluating whether a program leads
to gainful employment are based on students who complete various
credentials at an institution, and if a student completes multiple
credentials, they would typically only count in the metrics of the
highest credential they earn. A student completing several stackable
credentials would generally be included in the earnings and debt
cohorts of their last or highest credential completed. Students
completing a program with intermediate credentials may have higher
program costs that would impact the debt outcome calculations for the
program since the debt students accumulate at the same institution is
generally all included.
We disagree that such programs should be exempted from the GE
framework. If a student does take several intermediate credentials
before obtaining a higher degree, then the student's cumulative debt
and earnings outcomes are all, appropriately, associated with the
higher credential. If they complete an intermediate credential but do
not obtain the ultimate intended degree, then their debt and earnings
outcomes are attributed to the last or highest credential they
obtained.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters suggested that credit-bearing non-degree
programs at public and nonprofit institutions should be excluded from
the eligibility framework if the institutions offering those programs
also offered certified degree programs that used the identical CIP
codes as the non-degree programs, particularly when there was overlap
in the courses offered for the non-degree and degree programs that
shared the same CIP code.
Discussion: We do not believe a such an exclusion is warranted. If
students separately enroll in a certificate program at the institution,
that program is a GE program for purposes of the eligibility framework.
If students in a public or nonprofit program take courses in these
programs but ultimately earn a credential, then those students will not
be counted as they are not graduates of the program.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters suggested that graduate programs not be
included in the accountability framework because of the volatility of
graduate career paths. Other commenters noted that doctorate programs
leading to licensure should be excluded because the students are more
mature and should have more experience in evaluating and selecting
educational programs. Other commenters claimed that graduate Federal
education funds were not included when proprietary schools were
approved to participate in the grant and loan programs so there was no
congressional design to apply the gainful employment requirement on
those programs when they were subsequently made available to
proprietary institutions. Other commenters drew the opposite
conclusion, that graduate programs became eligible for student aid
without any exception to the gainful employment requirement for degree
programs offered by for-profit institutions. Those commenters suggested
that the higher debt levels associated with many graduate programs
favor using the eligibility framework to assess program earnings,
describing those graduate programs as the highest priced, highest debt
programs in the postsecondary educational system.
Discussion: Graduate programs offered by for-profit institutions
and graduate non-degree programs offered by public and nonprofit
institutions are subject to the GE program requirements in the HEA.
Given high and growing graduate borrowing levels, which often do not
correlate highly with earnings outcomes, the protections of the GE rule
are necessary for graduate students. That said, we also agree that
there are some considerations, such as postgraduation training
requirements, required before a program's impact on earnings can be
realized that are unique to graduate programs. We discuss those
considerations in the ``Measurement of Earnings'' section, below.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter thanked the Department for confirming that
comprehensive transition and postsecondary programs are excluded from
the D/E rates and EP measures.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for noting agreement with the
exclusion of students in these programs from the calculation of D/E
rates and EP measures under Sec. Sec. 668.403(c)(6) and 668.404(c)(6).
Changes: None.
Comments: Commenters objected to measures where the program
outcomes in the proposed regulations would be based on periods before
those regulations were in effect, saying it would be unfair to sanction
institutions under the eligibility measures based upon program and
pricing decisions that could not be undone or modified now. These
commenters claimed that the resulting metrics would not account for
program changes made in the intervening years and would, therefore, not
be useful to prospective students. Commenters suggested that it would
be fairer to only use outcome measures for
[[Page 70029]]
informational purposes when the rates were based on periods before the
regulations are in effect. Some commenters suggested that sanctions
could not be based on retroactive periods without more explicit
congressional authorization.
Discussion: The program information website and eligibility
determinations based on past program performance, even performance that
predates the effective date of the regulations, do not present a legal
impediment to these regulations. A law is ``not retroactive merely
because the facts upon which its subsequent action depends are drawn
from a time antecedent to the enactment.'' \114\ This principle applies
even when, as is the case with these regulations, the statutes or
regulations at issue were not in effect during the period being
measured.\115\ This principle has been confirmed in the context of the
Department's use of institutional cohort default
rates.116 117 The courts in these matters found that
measuring the past default rates of institutions was appropriate
because the results would not be used to undo past eligibility, but
rather, to determine future eligibility.\118\ As with the institutional
cohort default rate requirements, as long as it is a program's future
eligibility that is being determined using the D/E rates and EP
measure, the assessment can be based on prior periods of time. Indeed,
the court in APSCU v. Duncan rejected this retroactivity argument with
respect to the 2011 Prior Rule.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ Reynolds v. United States, 292 U.S. 443, 449 (1934).
\115\ Career College Ass'n v. Riley, No. 94-1214, 1994 WL 396294
(D.D.C. July 19, 1994).
\116\ Ass'n of Accredited Cosmetology Schools v. Alexander, 979
F.2d 859, 860-62 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
\117\ Pro Schools Inc. v. Riley, 824 F. Supp. 1314 (E.D. Wis.
1993).
\118\ See, for example, Ass'n of Accredited Cosmetology Schools,
979 F.2d at 865.
\119\ 870 F. Supp. 2d at 151-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, we believe that the program information website is of
interest to current and prospective students, even when based on
historical data, and provides helpful insight to students when
comparing and selecting among program offerings. We further maintain
that the transparency framework will be immediately useful to students,
prospective students, institutions, and the public, by filtering out
low-financial-value programs and enhancing competition among other
programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters believed it would be better to establish
the financial value transparency framework for all institutions and not
use that information for eligibility purposes until better data becomes
available over time to monitor the results and assess the program
outcomes.
Discussion: The Department disagrees that available data are not
suitable to the task of measuring gainful employment. The Department
has now over a decade of experience assessing the quality of program
level measures of earnings and debt outcomes and is confident that both
the earnings premium measure and debt to earnings measure capture the
relevant dimensions of program performance. As we discuss elsewhere in
this rule and in the NPRM, we believe that the transparency framework
is critical, but that the GE eligibility provisions created by this
rule provide critical additional protections for students and taxpayers
in career training programs.
Changes: None.
Potential Impacts
Comments: Some commenters suggested some contradiction in policy
measures like the transparency and GE accountability provisions in the
rule that could discourage students from public service careers while
also rewarding public service through loan forgiveness at a later
career point. Commenters also recommended excluding public service
educational programs whose graduates would qualify for Public Service
Loan Forgiveness to avoid decreasing the number of graduates in fields
that are already experiencing supply constraints.
Discussion: As noted elsewhere, the goal of these regulations is to
ensure programs are not leaving students with unaffordable debt or with
no enhancement to their earnings. Programs should ensure their
students' do not need to borrow excessively, regardless of what
repayment options may be available to them based on their career
choices after graduating. In most cases, we expect that programs will
serve both students likely to pursue public sector employment and
students who will not enter the public sector, and all students should
be protected from unaffordable levels of debt.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters expressed concern that the GE program
accountability framework would lead to the closure of smaller colleges
and vocational schools serving students who may not thrive in
traditional university settings. One of these commenters viewed the
measures as discrimination against students who do not want a
traditional college education and who want to work in the service
industries.
Discussion: The Department disagrees with the commenters. The
calculation and application of the D/E measure and the EP measure do
not vary based upon the size of the institution or the type of learning
environment it provides in its programs. They only vary to ensure there
are sufficient students in the data to calculate results. The effects
of the rule are driven by whether a program provides sufficient
financial value, and there are many small institutions whose programs
pass these metrics as well as larger institutions that see their
programs fail. We also disagree that the rules discriminate based upon
the type of postsecondary experience sought by students. There are
significant numbers of all types of programs that pass the GE measures
as shown in the RIA. The commenters did not provide any evidence as to
how the non-traditional nature of the program could be expected to
affect either the amount of debt students take on or their earnings.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter claimed that the regulations would lead to
students shifting from larger institutions to smaller institutions that
do not participate in title IV, HEA programs. The commenter further
claimed that non-participating programs do not need to maintain any
basic standards and therefore students will not be protected if they
attend those schools.
Several other commenters also suggested that students dependent
upon Federal student aid could be harmed if some institutions continued
to offer programs that lost eligibility to students that could afford
them without Federal student aid. Some commenters noted that programs
at risk of losing Federal student aid might also lose access to State
grants and further erode student access to some lower earnings
programs.
Discussion: The Department expects one outcome of these regulations
will be an enrollment shift from low-financial-value to high-financial-
value programs or, in some cases, away from low-financial-value
postsecondary programs to non-enrollment. It is also possible that some
students will shift from low-financial-value postsecondary programs to
programs where they cannot obtain title IV, HEA aid, though such
transfers will likely be limited by the lack of Federal aid available
to students at such programs. There is limited information about the
outcomes of students at non-participating programs, making it difficult
to estimate the consequences of such transfers (although research cited
in the RIA finds that among cosmetology programs, non-
[[Page 70030]]
participating programs have lower prices but similar licensure passage
rates). However, the Department believes that the rule will lead to net
benefits, as we expect that the availability of higher quality
information about program-level student outcomes, and the loss of title
IV, HEA eligibility by low value GE programs, will result in fewer
defaults, higher earnings for students, and additional tax revenue for
Federal, State, and local governments.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter argued that, in the NPRM, the Department
promoted a false narrative that higher education is not a pathway to
success for students and their families. This commenter worried that if
we enact these rules, there will not be students qualified to fulfill
workforce needs.
Discussion: The Department disagrees. As we noted in the NPRM, most
postsecondary programs provide benefits to students in the form of
higher wages that help them repay any loans they may have borrowed to
attend the program.\120\ We believe that all students benefit from the
availability of information about a program's debt and earnings
outcomes provided under the financial value transparency framework.
Moreover, by only providing title IV, HEA funding to GE programs that
meet the GE eligibility requirements, the Department is encouraging
students to pursue career pathways in higher education that will result
in them being gainfully employed. It will provide students a pathway to
success within higher education that does not leave them unable to pay
their debt or with earnings no greater than a comparable high school
graduate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ 88 FR 32300, 32306 (May 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters expressed that, by denying title IV, HEA
eligibility to failing GE programs, the GE regulations will limit
school choice for students. These commenters argued that students
should choose where to attend school without being deterred by a lack
of funding. Commenters asserted that it is unfair to limit student
choices for educational programs by using the GE program accountability
framework, and that doing so will perpetuate an uneven playing field
for the for-profit institutions. One commenter opined that the GE
program accountability framework will drive up the cost of higher
education because it will reduce the number of schools available and
decrease competition.
Commenters suggested that a better approach would be to provide
more guidance and accept alternate measures of success for a GE
program, such as graduation and placement rates, or establish more
stringent requirements for those institutions with higher cohort
default rates. Commenters asserted that graduation rates reported by
the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) show that
proprietary schools have higher graduation rates for first-time, full-
time students for two-year programs of over 60 percent, compared to 52
percent for private nonprofits and 29 percent for public institutions.
Discussion: The Department disagrees. By implementing the GE
program accountability framework, the Department is protecting students
from attending programs that leave students with unaffordable debt or
earnings not more than comparable high school graduates. As explained
further above, we do not believe such programs meet the HEA
requirements for participating in title IV, HEA as GE programs. Those
programs must prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized
occupation or profession, and the accountability framework adopted here
is designed to implement the applicable statutory provisions with clear
and administrable rules that test for earnings enhancements and
affordable debt. In addition, the GE program accountability framework,
rather than limiting school choice, will improve the choices available
to students and, at the same time, protect the interests of taxpayers
and the Federal Government.
For several reasons, the Department does not agree that the rule
will cause increases in tuition by reducing the number of educational
options available to students. The GE accountability provisions of the
rule, in part, target programs with high debt relative to earnings. We
expect the primary impacts of the rule to be (1) encouraging
institutions with high D/E programs to reduce their tuition or arrange
for their students to receive greater grant support to reduce
borrowing, and (2) making ineligible for participation in title IV, HEA
student aid those GE programs that have particularly high costs to
students, leaving more affordable options in other programs with better
outcome measures. More generally, the fact that so much variation in
debt exists across programs that are in similar fields with similar
earnings levels suggests strongly that competition across such programs
for students may play a limited role in keeping tuition low.
We expect that programs that are low performing under the framework
will take steps to improve, to avoid a loss of title IV, HEA
eligibility. As shown in the RIA (see Tables 4.25 and 4.26), most
students who enroll in a GE program projected to fail the D/E rates or
EP measure have better options available to them in a similar field
nearby or, possibly, at the same institution. On average, these
alternative options leave graduates with 43 percent higher earnings and
21 percent less debt.\121\ Accordingly, rather than restricting the
educational and professional choices of those considering career-
focused programs and causing cost increases due to reduced competition,
we believe the GE program accountability framework will lead to overall
improvement in the career program options available to students and in
the financial outcomes for those students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ See the section in the RIA titled ``Alternative Options
Exist for Students to Enroll in High-Value Programs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nor has the Department ignored the value of student choice. The
financial value transparency framework will provide average education
debt and earnings information about degree programs offered at
nonprofit and public institutions to help students and families make
informed choices, while the GE program accountability framework will
ensure that GE programs are meeting eligibility thresholds in accord
with applicable statutes. Again, the GE program accountability
framework is based on the GE provisions of the HEA that differentiate
between career training programs and other eligible programs by
conditioning the title IV eligibility of career training programs on
their meeting the gainful employment requirement. We believe it is
appropriate to set eligibility thresholds for these programs to ensure
they meet the HEA requirements, and that these thresholds will promote
better outcomes for students and encourage institutions to improve the
outcome measures for marginal programs. By providing equivalent
information about programs not subject to the GE eligibility
requirements, the financial value transparency framework will promote
better comparisons of comparable programs offered at different
institutions for students looking at multiple institutions.
We also disagree with suggestions by commenters to adopt measures
such as graduation or placement rates instead of the D/E rates and EP
measures or to create stronger conditions around cohort default rates.
While we agree that graduation rates are an important piece of
information, they are insufficient for ensuring that programs prepare
students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. The
measures in the GE
[[Page 70031]]
program accountability framework are based upon students who graduate
and received title IV, HEA aid, and the data included in the NPRM and
this final rule show that even when looking only at graduates, there
are too many programs that leave students in a situation where they are
no better off than if they had never attended postsecondary education
or they have debt that they cannot afford to repay. Restricting our
analysis to graduation rates would overlook these concerning results.
Broadly, we do not view a high completion rate as evidence that a
program prepares its students for gainful employment if most graduates
struggle in the labor market or cannot afford their debt.
Placement rates exhibit similar shortfalls. While they can be
useful indicators of results, not every program is directly tied to a
specific set of occupations and, thus, such measures may not always be
appropriate. Moreover, calculating placement rates is burdensome and
time consuming for institutions compared to the GE program
accountability metrics. Further, we do not believe that job placement
is proof that a program is preparing students for gainful employment in
a recognized occupation, if graduate earnings are no better than if
they had never attended postsecondary education or if they nonetheless
have debts they cannot afford.
Regarding default rates, the Department is concerned about the
negative effects of default on borrowers, so we are taking steps to
lessen the likelihood of default, even if the institution does nothing
to improve its offerings. For instance, in the final rule improving
income-driven repayment,\122\ we instituted regulatory provisions that
would allow for the automatic enrollment into income-driven repayment
of borrowers who go at least 75 days without making their scheduled
payment and who have granted us the approval for the disclosure of
their Federal tax information from the IRS. We have also created the
new Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, which increases the
amount of income protected from payments, which will give more at-risk
borrowers a $0 payment and prevent many from defaulting. While these
provisions provide critical benefits for borrowers, they underscore the
importance of additional measures of program outcomes beyond default
rates to assess whether programs are preparing students for gainful
employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ 88 FR 43820 (July 10, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Demographics and Outcomes
Comments: Many commenters raised concerns about how the
demographics of students at programs could lead to unfairness in the
calculation of earnings or debt at programs with diverse student
bodies. For example, several commenters raised the issue of wage
discrimination that affects the earnings of racial and ethnic minority
students and women. Because of this labor market discrimination, some
commenters argued that programs that serve widely discriminated-against
students and communities will be disadvantaged in the calculation of
earnings relative to programs that serve fewer students from
communities facing discrimination. Several commenters also claimed that
the high school earnings threshold reflects in large part the gender
composition of the high school completer workforce in each State,
which, if largely male, may not be an appropriate comparator for
postsecondary programs that predominantly graduate women. Many
commenters argued that schools that educate a large population of low-
income or low-wealth students will have higher debt-to-earnings ratios,
since such students are more likely to borrow. Another commenter
suggested that the Department should apply a ``Pell Premium'' to
institutions with high populations of low-wealth students. However,
several commenters also suggested that institutions play a strong role
in the job opportunities their graduates can obtain, even if student
demographics can have some role in the outcomes across programs.
Discussion: We agree that systemic discrimination may affect the
need for some groups of students to borrow and may affect their
earnings after graduation. Still, we do not believe that the
demographic makeup of a program's students sufficiently influences
whether the program meets this final rule's minimal thresholds for
financial value such that the Department should alter or abandon the
regulations that we adopt here.
The Department addresses this concern in the RIA, the basic points
of which we reiterate and discuss here. In the RIA, the Department
provides evidence indicating that programs and institutions play an
important causal role in determining student outcomes, more so than
student demographics. We first present regression analysis (Tables 4.22
and 4.23) showing that institutional and program factors (credential
level, control, institution fixed effects) explain a great deal of the
variation in program outcomes. Adding student demographics on top of
these variables does not explain much additional variation in outcome
(as measured by increase in R-squared) (Tables 4.22-4.23). Second, we
show that program-level differences in students' family income
background is only modestly correlated with the EP measure, and that
there are many programs that pass at every level of family income
(Figure 4.3). The same is true among programs with similar gender and
racial composition (Table 4.24). Third, evidence from our compliance
oversight activities indicates that some institutions aggressively
recruit women or students of color into programs of substandard quality
and claim that the resulting poor outcomes are because of the alleged
``access'' the program provides to their students. Finally, the closure
of a poor-performing program is not likely to affect students' access
to a similar program with better outcomes. More than 90 percent of
students have at least one transfer option within the same two-digit
CIP code, credential level, and geographic area (Table 4.25). We also
note that the research literature on this topic likewise concludes that
factors related to institutions and programs are stronger predictors of
student outcomes than the demographic characteristics of students. On
that score, please consult the numerous citations to this literature in
the ``Need for Regulatory Action'' section of the RIA.
Furthermore, in designing the D/E rates and EP measures, the
Department included several features to limit the influence of student
demographics on these financial value metrics. In the measurement of
program debt under Sec. 668.401(b)(1)(i), for example, we cap
individual student borrowing at the direct costs charged by the program
excluding borrowing for living costs. Low-income students tend to
borrow more for non-tuition and fee expenses than do high-income
students; therefore, this cap at the total cost for tuition, fees, and
books should mitigate concerns that programs will be penalized for
enrolling large numbers of low-income students.\123\ Further, an
analysis by New America suggests that capping debt at the total cost
for tuition, fees, and books will have a particularly large impact for
programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs),
Hispanic Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and
other Minority Serving
[[Page 70032]]
Institutions (MSIs), in terms of increasing the number of programs at
these institutions that pass the metrics.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ See, for example, Dancy, Kim & Barrett, Ben (2018). Living
on Credit? An Overview of Student Borrowing for Non-Tuition
Expenses. New America (https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/living-credit/).
\124\ See Caldwell, Tia & Garza, Roxanne (2023). Previous
Projections Overestimated Gainful Employment Failures: Almost All
HBCUs & MSI Graduate Programs Pass. New America (https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/ge-failures-overestimated/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even using the data in the 2022 PPD, which does not have that cap
applied (since the cap will rely on institution-level reporting not yet
available to the Department), programs with small proportions of
students who receive Pell Grants (which proxies for socioeconomic
status) have median student debt levels that are similar to programs
serving large shares of Pell students. In Figure 1.1, we show the
relationship between median program debt and the share of Pell students
using the PPD. As the share of Pell students increases (moving from
left to right on the graph), the average median program debt does not
increase (the average of the individual programs' median debt levels is
shown in the dark line); rather, it remains similar. To illustrate that
institutions do influence borrowing levels, in the same figure we show
the average median debt levels for institutions with higher tuition
levels (the highest quartile of tuition, with the average depicted by
the dotted line) versus those with lower levels of tuition (those in
the lowest quartile of tuition, depicted by the dashed line). The
figure shows that tuition levels affect borrowing levels substantially,
whereas the family income background (proxied by the percent of student
receiving Pell grants) of students does not.
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC23.000
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C
Related to potential issues raised about differences in the gender
compositions of programs and high school graduates in the State,
adjusting thresholds poses several challenges, including practical
feasibility. As described in more detail below, attempting to create
program-specific metrics would be very complex and lead to inconsistent
standards across programs. As well, standards might need to continually
change as the gender composition of programs change, potentially adding
undesirable volatility to program outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comments: Working from concerns about the role of demographics in
the comparison of metrics across programs, commenters suggested a
number of potential solutions. One commenter suggested that the
earnings information provided on the Department's program information
website should note salary discrepancies by gender and race. One
commenter recommended the Department disaggregate high school earnings
data by demographic characteristics when an institution can demonstrate
a predominate demographic or population being served by its programs or
field of study. A few other commenters, relying on an estimate of
return on investment from a think tank analysis,\125\ suggested
adjusting the threshold down by 15 percent to account for variances in
earnings levels due to demographic differences. A few commenters
suggested using demographic adjustments for labor market
[[Page 70033]]
discrimination, similar to those used in the Bipartisan Policy Center's
(BPC) methodology for estimating the return on investment (ROI) for
college enrollment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ The referenced report is available here: https://freopp.org/accountable-or-not-evaluating-the-biden-administrations-proposed-gainful-employment-framework-a49231683263.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: We appreciate the suggestions provided by commenters.
For website disclosures, the Department is interested in providing data
to students that will help them make informed decisions and to
institutions that will help them identify and remove the potential
barriers to opportunities for all students to achieve success. The
Department will carefully consider the best way of providing this
information to students and institutions, including contextual
information about the influence of factors such as race and gender
discrimination on earnings levels, taking into account the results of
consumer testing.
Related to high school earnings, the EP threshold is based on an
estimate of State-level median earnings of individuals aged 25 to 34
who have only a high school diploma or GED. Further adjustment to this
threshold, such as using a program-specific statistical adjustment to
better match the demographics of students completing a given program to
the composition of high school graduates in a given State, poses
several challenges. An important constraint on this approach is its
practical feasibility. To implement the approach, one would need to
measure high school median earnings separately for each demographic
subgroup of interest. If we only started with the five race and
ethnicity groups on which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
requires reporting and added two sex-at-birth categories, we would need
to estimate median earnings for ten subgroups within each State. In
many States there would be too few individuals in ACS data to produce a
reliable measure, so different groups would need to be combined or
other methods of adjustment would need to be employed, thereby
requiring potentially arbitrary methodological choices. To compute a
program-specific threshold, presumably one would create a weighted
average of these subgroups, where the weights would correspond to the
share of completers in the program. Again, this could be quite complex
and create different standards that programs must meet for eligibility.
Especially in small programs, changes in the demographic composition of
programs could result in different earnings thresholds from year to
year. This could add undesirable volatility to program outcomes under
the rule.
With respect to establishing a 15 percent variance to account for
disadvantaged groups, we appreciate the suggestion, but there are
numerous issues with the commenter's methodology that preclude a sound
basis for adjusting the rule by an amount generated by that analysis.
This includes several self-acknowledged reasons why the commenter's
methodology systematically overestimates or underestimates ROI for
different types of programs, and makes assumptions that students'
earnings trajectories relative to their peers do not change over time.
In addition, the commenter's attempt to create counterfactual wages
relies on adjustments made on very broad educational credential by
field of study groups that do not reflect specific programs well.
The Department has considered different methodologies for
calculating a median high school earnings threshold in each State,
including an option (using only those individuals with a high school
degree working year-round) that would have used an earnings threshold
approximately 20 percent higher.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ See ``Alternative Earnings Threshold'' in the
``Alternatives Considered'' section of the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BPC's ROI model includes a ``discrimination adjustment'' based
on earnings gaps in the overall population of college graduates.
Earnings of female graduates, and graduates from underrepresented
minority racial or ethnic groups, are adjusted upward to match the
earnings of white male college graduates. If applied to a program's
earnings outcome measure, this statistical adjustment would
misrepresent the true median earnings of graduates from a given program
by inflating the median salary for programs enrolling large shares of
women and underrepresented minorities. Such an adjustment could
potentially misrepresent a student's potential earnings, and ability to
repay their debt, for a given program, which are important datapoints
within the financial value transparency framework. If applied to State-
level EP thresholds of median high school earnings, this statistical
adjustment is again likely to cause more year-over-year uncertainty for
programs serving a demographic population that is dissimilar from the
State-level population of high school graduates in the labor force, due
to small n-sizes of these groups.
Finally, we note again that as shown in Tables 4.22 and 4.23 of the
RIA and elsewhere in this rule, program demographics do not play an
outsized role in influencing the debt and earnings-based outcomes
measured in the final rule. In light of these factors, we believe the
methodology for setting thresholds based on State-level high school
earnings described in this rule is better than alternative approaches
and sets a reasonable benchmark for the earnings outcomes of all
programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters suggested that the Department should
include separate provisions for underserved and under-resourced
institutions such as HBCUs and other MSIs. These commenters contended
that the unique circumstances of HBCUs and MSIs should be considered
important factors in assisting both students and institutions. The
commenters stated that the Department can do this by providing
technical assistance to these schools instead of loss of eligibility if
programs fail the D/E rates or EP measure, helping to achieve
compliance.
Discussion: While we are sensitive to the additional burden
associated with implementing these regulations, we do not believe an
exception should be made for HBCUs and other MSIs. As for the financial
value transparency framework and the acknowledgment provisions therein,
we believe the students at HBCUs and other MSIs are just as deserving
of access to useful and comparable information about programs,
including information that may be necessary to prevent them from
accumulating unaffordable debt. As for the GE program accountability
framework, we similarly believe that consumer protection and providing
information to highlight the value of programs is important for all
students who attend GE programs. As stated above, we maintain that any
burden on institutions to meet the reporting requirements is outweighed
by the benefits of the transparency and accountability frameworks of
the regulations to students, prospective students, their families,
taxpayers, and the public at large.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters expressed additional concerns about the
impact of the rules on institutions that educate large numbers of low-
income and minority students. For example, several commenters equated
the student acknowledgment requirements to public shaming of
institutions that educate such students. Several other commenters
contended that, as a result of the rules, institutions will
discriminate against students with lower incomes who do not have the
capacity to pay for their program with their own money. These
commenters believed that schools are likely to admit students who can
be persuaded to borrow private student loans, who do
[[Page 70034]]
not require accommodations for disabilities, and who enroll in training
for fields that are likely to result in higher incomes. This means,
according to these commenters, that women, people of color, people with
disabilities, and LGBTQ+ individuals will be less likely to gain access
to these higher education programs.
Discussion: We do not agree that the student acknowledgment
requirements constitute a public shaming of institutions that serve
low-income and minority students. The acknowledgments are delivered to
the Department through its website, and they are obtained from
individual students with respect to particular programs--more
specifically, title IV eligible programs that do not lead to an
undergraduate degree and that are associated with high debt burden, as
well as GE programs that are at risk of losing title IV, HEA
eligibility based on measures of high debt burden or no enhanced
earnings. The acknowledgments are not obtained from the public at large
nor are they associated with the institution as a whole. Moreover, as
further discussed in response to a comment above, our analysis of the
PPD shows that programs with small proportions of students who receive
Pell Grants (which proxies for socioeconomic status) have similar
median student debt as programs serving large shares of Pell students.
Moreover, the Department believes that the GE program
accountability framework will help protect all individuals including
women, people of color, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ+
individuals from entering programs that do not prepare students for
gainful employment. The lack of title IV, HEA aid at such programs will
help students to avoid failing GE programs, which will ultimately help
maximize their educational investment. To help prevent institutions
from encouraging students to substitute private loans for Federal
loans, the D/E rates measure counts all student borrowing including
institutional and private loans in the median debt measure. In effect,
then, institutions do not receive an advantage on that metric for
concentrating on students with access to private lending, which was a
matter of concern to some commenters.
Changes: None.
Alternative Accountability Metrics
Comments: One commenter proposed that the Department use repayment
rates as an alternative accountability metric to monitor debt
affordability. This commenter noted that in their analysis of College
Scorecard data, they identified many online schools where less than 20
percent of borrowers make any progress in lowering their loan
principal; however, these programs pass the D/E rates and EP metrics.
This commenter recommended penalties for programs where many students
do not make progress paying down their principal. Specifically, the
commenter suggested the Department consider mandatory disbursement
delays, mandatory reduced loan maximums (e.g., 20 percent less annual
loan maximums), or limiting borrowing for one category of costs.
Discussion: The Department agrees that measuring the realized
repayment rates of borrower cohorts from particular programs may
provide valuable information on borrower outcomes. As provided in Sec.
668.43(d)(1)(vii), through the program information website, we will
provide the loan repayment rate for students or graduates who entered
repayment on Direct Loans. The Department currently lacks sufficient
evidence, however, to design accountability thresholds that would tie
eligibility to whether a program's repayment rate exceeded a particular
threshold.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters suggested that we assess programs based
on a tuition-to-earnings ratio rather than a debt-to-earnings ratio.
These commenters believed this approach would treat programs with
similar prices and earnings outcomes comparably, regardless of the
share of students with debt.
Discussion: We believe it is reasonable to consider whether
students' labor market outcomes justify the amount they borrow, as well
as any educational expenses they pay using other funds. This rule will
generate new program-level data that captures the total debt students
borrow to attend programs, which will provide students with relevant
information about program outcomes. Since no data on program-level
tuition exists, we are not able to calculate a tuition-to-earnings
ratio. We focus instead on the direct costs to attend a program that
students finance with student loans. This approach reflects the
Department's natural interest in Federal loans being repaid, and its
concerns that excessive borrowing to attend postsecondary education may
lead to financial consequences including default that undermine the
goals of title IV, HEA programs in promoting economic mobility.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted that nursing education is composed of
various programs and specializations ranging from practical nursing
degrees to doctoral degrees. The current GE metrics may not
differentiate between the levels of nursing education and varying
incomes. For example, the employment outcomes and debt-to-earnings
ratio for a nursing assistant program may differ significantly from
those of a four-year Bachelor of Science in nursing program. According
to the commenter, incomes vary widely in individual fields in the
nursing profession and a rigid formulaic measure may result in unfair
and inconsistent outcomes. The commenter further stated that GE metrics
prioritize financial indicators, such as earnings and debt, while
overlooking other valuable outcomes specific to nursing. The commenter
contended that the Department should consider factors like patient
outcomes, job satisfaction, and advancement opportunities. The
commenter believed that these aspects are also important in assessing
the overall quality and value of nursing programs.
Discussion: The EP and D/E metrics are measured for programs that
are defined based on credential level and CIP codes. We expect these
measures will indeed differentiate between programs that train nurse
assistants and BS programs in nursing, unless the BS program graduates
end up finding employment as nurse assistants. Regardless, the GE
measures are meant to determine whether graduates of career training
programs leave their students with enhanced earnings or affordable
debt. These are minimum standards to ensure students are not
financially harmed by completing an education program. The additional
factors specified by the commenter are important but not measured by or
reported to the Department Therefore, we are unable to report on these
measures.
Changes: None.
Other Comments
Comments: A commenter expressed concern that if we promulgate these
GE regulations, there is nothing to stop the Department from enacting
more restrictive metrics for all programs.
Discussion: Although D/E rates and the EP measure will be
calculated for informational purposes for all programs, we note that
the use of the D/E rates and EP measures in this final rule to
determine continuing title IV, HEA eligibility for GE programs is
pursuant to the statutory authority specific to those programs.
Changes: None.
[[Page 70035]]
Comments: Several commenters noted that proprietary schools provide
value and economic strength to the country even though they do not
receive the State and Federal support provided to public and nonprofit
institutions that subsidize the education costs for students. The
commenters said that students taking programs at trade schools should
have the same opportunities to obtain Federal loans as students
attending other institutions of higher education. Commenters also
questioned whether programs offered at public and nonprofit
institutions in fields such as performing arts, education, leisure, and
hospitality provided gainful employment compared to the lower program
costs and many jobs available to graduates from cosmetology programs.
Discussion: We agree that many factors go into program costs and
post-graduate earnings for the choices students make when selecting
institutions, programs, and careers. The regulations measure education
debt and earnings for the student graduates, and the education debt
itself is tied to the program costs that might or might not be
subsidized from other sources. Other factors such as program length
also impact those measures. Regardless of those factors, the average
education debt for a program is relevant because it reflects the direct
obligation that the student is expected to pay, while the average
earnings provides some measure of the graduate's ability to do so.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters noted that many graduates of the shorter
programs offered at proprietary schools can get licensed in professions
with work that provides those graduates and society with immediate
benefits. One commenter acknowledged that some for-profit beauty
schools may underperform, but surmised that students take cosmetology
programs with different goals, plans and ambitions, such as working
part-time instead of full time. A number of commenters criticized the
eligibility outcome measures as being targeted to cosmetology programs
and asserted that the proposed regulations are intended to drive
student enrollments away from cosmetology programs and into other
fields such as medical and dental. Commenters strongly objected to
measures where Department estimates show the regulations could
eliminate two-thirds of the cosmetology programs offered at proprietary
institutions. Some commenters noted that institutions have little voice
in factors that may be reflected in the lower earnings for cosmetology
programs such as part time work or unreported income. Some commenters
cautioned that programs failing the earnings tests may close and
students may face limited choices to enroll in more expensive degree
programs or find comparable cosmetology programs in less convenient
locations. Other commenters said that many cosmetology graduates
seeking full time careers easily get well-paying jobs even before they
develop dedicated clientele, while others may do little beyond
maintaining their licenses.
Discussion: These measures for debt and earnings are comparable for
all programs under the transparency framework and eligibility measures.
In general, this means that to keep the education debt affordable for
the graduates, programs with lower earnings will have lower costs.
Graduates choosing not to work full-time or providing volunteer
services in addition to working part-time still are faced with the
obligation to repay the education debt associated with their program.
The regulations provide the average education debt and average earnings
for program graduates without adjustments for any part-time work, and
students should consider that information when evaluating career
options. Institutions offering GE programs that do not meet the
eligibility thresholds may search for better options for their students
that effectively reduce the education loan debt or lead to better
earnings outcomes. A more detailed discussion about unreported income
from cosmetology program graduates is addressed separately in the
``Tipped Income'' sections here and in the NPRM.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters suggested earnings outcomes could be
impacted due to student athletes who might underperform in academic
engagement, impact retention and graduation rates, and not be gainfully
employed.
Discussion: The Department has no information that suggests the
commenters' assertions that student athletes are likely to have lower
academic engagement and thus lower earnings might be correct. The
metrics of the rule are based on students that complete a program,
however, so the commenters' concerns about retention and completion are
not likely to be relevant. Regardless, the Department expects
institutions to serve all of its students well and to meet the minimal
standards set by the rule.
Changes: None.
Definitions--Sec. 668.2
General Comments
Comments: Several commenters stated that the definitions are
unclear and do not adequately define terms in ways that can be
operationalized by institutions. Commenters contended that previous
iterations of the GE rule have shown that many definitions are so
confusing that implementation for schools became overwhelming. These
were general assertions, and no examples were given to the extent
comments addressed specific definitions, they are addressed in the
corresponding section.
Discussion: We believe the definitions are clear. We have taken
care to define terms precisely in this final rule and do not anticipate
widespread confusion. In addition, as we did when issuing the 2014
Prior Rule, we will again provide clear guidance and training to assist
postsecondary institutions in complying with the new regulations.
Changes: None.
Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) Code
Comments: Many commenters asserted that the proposed regulation's
definition of the CIP Code to consist of six-digits is not appropriate
for the purposes of the transparency and accountability regulations.
Commenters offered several at times conflicting reasons for using
alternative approaches. One commenter noted that the six-digit CIP code
does not adequately distinguish among different levels of program
success at different locations of the institution. Another commenter
cautioned that the four-digit CIP code captured several different six-
digit programs offered at a school, and that if the program defined at
a four-digit CIP level failed then all the programs at the school would
fail and the school might need to close.
On the other hand, other commenters suggested the definition of a
CIP code should consist of four-digits to increase the number of
students covered by metrics under the rule, or alternatively to use the
six-digit CIP but to ``roll-up'' programs to the four-digit level when
doing so would avoid too few students at the six-digit level programs.
Some commenters noted that few four-digit programs had multiple six-
digit programs within them, and in those cases, the different six-digit
programs rarely had different financial value outcomes. This, they
said, suggested there would be little granularity lost in using the
four-digit CIP level to define programs, and would increase coverage of
the rates. Finally, one commenter
[[Page 70036]]
expressed appreciation for the Department's decision to use 6-digit CIP
codes and requested the Department to re-release the dataset included
with the NPRM with a 6-digit CIP code versus the currently published 4-
digit CIP code data to aid in understanding institutions' performance
with these new measures.
Discussion: We appreciate commenters' views on both sides of this
issue. There is a tradeoff between granularity of how specifically
programs' performances are measured, and the coverage of metrics due to
minimum n-size restrictions discussed elsewhere. As we note in the RIA,
we estimate that metrics using a 6-digit CIP with the 4-year completion
cohort roll-up for programs with few completers over 2 years will be
available for programs enrolling over 80 percent of title IV, HEA
recipients. While also rolling up programs to the four-digit level
could allow even greater coverage, the potential gains are small, and
it is possible that some programs (measured at the six-digit level)
that should be deemed passing are combined with larger failing programs
and end up failing. We put more weight on avoiding an inappropriate
sanction on a passing program, and so prefer to define programs at the
six-digit level.
Although the Department considered treating each additional
location offering the same combination of six-digit CIP code and
credential level as a separate program, we determined that doing so
would further reduce the number of programs with a sufficient number of
completers to be evaluated, and the gains in granular coverage may not
be justified. This is, in part, due to an added dimension of complexity
that not all locations are well aligned with the organizational units
of institutions with which students engage in pursuing an education,
and the mapping between locations and such units differs widely across
States. The Department might revisit the issue of program
classification in the future, for example to assess student outcomes
more granularly across different campuses in some State systems or in
online programs.
The Department does not anticipate being able to rerelease the
information published with the NPRM at the six-digit CIP level due to
constraints in our ability to obtain earnings data.
Changes: None.
Office of Postsecondary Education Identification (OPEID) Code Level
Comments: A few commenters argued that, in defining a ``program'',
the Department should use the eight-digit Office of Postsecondary
Education identification number (OPEID) since it because it more
granularly identifies the institution where a student receives an
education. The commenter asserted that disaggregated data would afford
students a clearer understanding of the quality of their specific
institution. Also, the commenter stated that accreditors and State
regulators view institutions with distinct 8-digit OPEID numbers
separately and so using the 8-digit OPEID would align data across the
triad.
Discussion: The Department agrees with these commenters that it
would be desirable to be able to track program performance at separate
locations of colleges with multiple locations rather than reporting
them together under a single six-digit OPEID campus. Currently,
however, eight-digit OPEID locations do not correspond neatly to the
separate components of an institution that students interact with to
participate in their education programs. Moreover, the Department must
balance the competing interests of specificity of data and having
enough completers in a cohort group to calculate rates. Additional sub-
division of completer groups would lead to some programs falling short
of 30 students in the 4-year cohort, resulting in rates and data being
unavailable for those programs. We believe that variation in the same
program offered by the same institution at different locations would be
too small to justify the loss of rates for programs that fall short of
the 30 completer n-size requirement.
Changes: None.
Cohort Period
Comments: One commenter stated that, for programs that prepare
pilots, student outcomes should be measured under the GE regulations
after students have completed the credential and worked for the
airlines at least 2 to 3 years. The commenter noted that the proposed
GE outcomes measures could negatively impact flight schools.
The commenter proposed adding a new paragraph to the definition of
``cohort period'' that reads: ``For a program whose students are
required to complete post-graduation flight hours pursuant to the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards to qualify as an
Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) and where a majority of the graduates are
pursuing an FAA ATP certification, the sixth and seventh award years
prior to the award year for which the most recent data are available
from the Federal agency with earnings data at the time the D/E rates
and earnings threshold measure are calculated. For this purpose, the
institution must provide a certification that a majority of its
graduates pursue completion of the required FAA certified flight hours
to work as an FAA Certified ATP.''
The commenter also recommended adding another paragraph to the same
definition of ``cohort period'' that reads: ``For a program whose
students are required to complete post-graduation flight hours pursuant
to the Federal Aviation Administration standards to qualify as an
Airline Transport Pilot (`ATP') and where a majority of the graduates
are pursuing an FAA ATP certification, the sixth, seventh, eighth, and
ninth award years prior to the award year for which the most recent
data are available from the Federal agency with earnings data at the
time the D/E rates and earnings threshold measure are calculated. For
this purpose, the institution must provide a certification that a
majority of its graduates pursue completion of the required FAA
certified flight hours to work as an FAA Certified ATP.''
Discussion: The Department declines to add the proposed language.
We are committed to reviewing our own internal data and processes to
collect, analyze, and make program eligibility determinations based on
the soundest data available to us. We are concerned that providing
program specific carve-outs that have not been evaluated using the
Department's internal data and processes would cause the GE metrics to
be inconsistent and ineffective.
Changes: None.
Earnings Threshold
Comments: None.
Discussion: The proposed definition of ``earnings threshold''
referred to a ``Federal agency with earnings data'' as the basis for
determining median earnings for purposes of calculating the earnings
threshold, however our proposed description of the provision in
explained that ``[u]sing data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the
Department would also calculate an earnings threshold. . . .'' \127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ 88 FR 32300, 32332 (May 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change: We have clarified the definition of ``earnings threshold''
to provide that median earnings are determined based on data from the
Census Bureau.
Institutional Grants and Scholarships
Comments: One commenter stated that the definition is not
grammatically correct and should be improved through technical, non-
substantive edits.
[[Page 70037]]
Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenter.
Changes: The Department has updated the definition to read:
``Assistance that the institution or its affiliate controls or directs
to reduce or offset the original amount of a student's institutional
costs and that does not have to be repaid. Typically, an institutional
grant or scholarship includes a grant, scholarship, fellowship,
discount, or fee waiver.''
Student
Comments: Several commenters believed that defining ``student,''
for purposes of these regulations, to include only title IV, HEA
recipients, would undermine the quality of data that the Department
would use to calculate the D/E rates and EP measures for programs with
significant numbers of students who did not receive Federal student
aid. One commenter proposed to expand the definition of ``student'' to
include graduates who have not received any title IV, HEA assistance
for enrolling in a program, noting that in some years, 10 to 20 percent
of the commenter's institution's graduates do not receive title IV, HEA
funds. The commenter contended that it is unfair that a measure based
on graduates' median debt excludes graduates who did not receive title
IV, HEA assistance. One commenter suggested that, given the reporting
proposed, logistical hurdles in adding these graduates to the cohorts
are easily overcome.
Discussion: These rules provide a framework to provide financial
value transparency information to students and to determine the
eligibility for students to receive Federal student aid at career
training programs. It is reasonable to base this eligibility on
measures of the outcomes of students who receive that aid. Similarly,
for non-GE programs the Department seeks to provide relevant
information to students regarding the outcomes of programs for students
receiving title IV, HEA assistance. This will help students who need to
borrow to attend non-GE programs to make an informed decision and,
where applicable, hold GE programs accountable to increased oversight
and guardrails.
Changes: None.
Title IV Loan
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department omit the
``title IV loan'' definition or, if the Department believes that it is
crucial to define the term for these regulations, use the existing
defined term of ``Direct Loan Program loan'' at Sec. 668.2(b).\128\
The commenter contended that the proposed definition is incomplete and
not aligned with actual statutory provisions, which could be misleading
and confusing. The commenter noted that, although new Federal Family
Education Loan Program (FFELP) and Federal Perkins (Perkins) Loan
Program loans are no longer being originated, these loans still exist
and should not be excluded from the definition of ``title IV loan.''
The commenter cited, as examples, Sec. Sec. 668.403(e)(1) and
668.404(c)(1), in which the Department refers to ``title IV loans'' as
including Perkins and FFELP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ Under 34 CFR 668.2(b), a ``Direct Loan Program loan'' is a
loan made under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenter. We can rely
on the definition of Direct Loan Program loan in preexisting
regulations, and we agree that, to avoid confusion, it is helpful to
use consistent terminology in our regulations.
Changes: The Department has revised references to ``title IV loan''
to ``Direct Loan Program'' loan throughout the final rule's regulatory
text.
Comments: One commenter suggested that, in calculating
administrative burden, the Department should consider the
administrative burden of all the proposed rules together, not
individually.
Discussion: The Department took great care to analyze the impact of
the proposed regulations. The Department has separated the GE and
Financial Value Transparency Framework topics from the other rules
covered in the NPRM. We, therefore, updated the RIA to reflect that, as
well as to reflect changes we made from the proposed rules to these
final rules.
Changes: None.
Measurement of Earnings
Timing of Earnings Measurement
Comments: One commenter supported the Department's proposal to
measure students' earnings for the calendar year three years after
graduation, observing that the proposed interval will give students
time to establish normal earning levels and will allow for meaningful
comparisons of debt and earnings outcomes between programs.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters expressed concerns over the timing of
earnings measurement. First, many expressed concerns that three years
is too little time from graduation to allow for earnings to grow enough
to be a fair representation of the earnings return to pursuing a degree
in their field of study. Commenters noted that, in some cases, fields
with lower initial earnings can end up having higher lifetime earnings.
Others believed that we should account for the full lifetime earnings
that flow from the benefit of a degree. Some commenters suggested that
students without family members to advise them to consider other
factors might be more swayed by the short-term earnings information
provided as part of the financial value transparency framework.
By contrast, others argued that this three-year lag between when
students graduate and when their earnings are measured is too long to
fairly characterize the current quality of the program at the moment
any sanctions might be levied.
Discussion: Because the benefit of some educational investments may
take time to manifest, real-time assessments of educational program
performance face a tradeoff between allowing enough time to pass to
produce an accurate measure of the benefits and assessing those
outcomes quickly enough that they are likely to reflect the current
performance of a program. We agree that trusted resources such as
family members can provide important assistance in college decisions,
and we believe that the information produced from this rule will aid
the decision making of students and their families. We are not aware of
evidence that supports the argument that students without family
members on which to rely will systematically make differential
decisions in the way suggested by the commenter.
We believe a three-year lag in measuring earnings, with longer
periods for programs documented to have exceptionally high earnings
growth due to government-imposed limits on early career earnings
capacity, strikes this balance. Data from the Census' Postsecondary
Employment Outcomes (PSEO) project shows that earnings levels measured
shortly after graduation are very highly correlated with longer term
measures.\129\ The correlations of programs' 1-year and 5-year post-
graduation earnings measures with 10-year program median earnings are
72 and 89 percent, respectively (a 3-year earnings measure is not
available in the PSEO, but it is reasonable to expect its correlation
with longer term earnings to be between the 1- and 5-year measures).
Moreover, according to administrative Department data on median debt
levels
[[Page 70038]]
for each program, programs' median debt levels evolve relatively
slowly--the correlation of program median debt levels for the 2016-2017
and 2021-2022 cohorts is about 0.96. In general, then, information on
past cohorts' debt and earnings outcomes are likely to be highly
relevant for predicting outcomes of future cohorts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ These data are available at https://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/pseo_experimental.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Post-Graduate Training Requirements
Comments: Several commenters noted that recent graduates who engage
in apprenticeships and other types of probationary or training periods,
often required by the State before students can practice independently,
earn lower wages in those initial years as compared to later years. The
specific programs that commenters pointed to include clinical
psychologists; marriage and family therapists; clinical counselors;
social workers; and veterinarians. Other programs, especially in
medicine, have residency requirements. In other cases, commenters noted
that careers in their field often involve graduates running their own
business, which requires time to build out a steady clientele and
suppresses initial earnings.
One commenter suggested that, in determining which programs should
be eligible for a longer earnings horizon, the Department should
consider whether (1) the relevant field requires multiyear post-degree
supervision for licensure (noting the possibility of creating competing
State and Federal regulatory frameworks); and (2) a large increase in
the earnings of program graduates follows licensure.
Discussion: Both the D/E rates and EP measures are based on the
earnings of graduates after three years. For example, for students
graduating between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019 (the 2019 award
year), their earnings would be measured in calendar year 2022. In most
cases this should give students enough time to settle into stable
employment, and after that transition the Department believes it is
reasonable to expect students to be able to meet the minimum standards
of this rule to be able to afford their debt payments and for a gain in
earnings beyond what they might have earned in high school to be
realized.
Moreover, we note that a student's earnings three years after
graduation might govern their loan payments for up to five years after
the student graduates if they enroll in income driven repayment plans.
That is between 20 and 25 percent of the full time that students will
be required to make payments on such plans, so the Department has a
responsibility to taxpayers to hold institutions accountable in
providing quality programs that produce graduates that earn enough to
repay their loans at that point.
The Department is sympathetic to the argument that some programs
may have lower earnings three years after graduation due to government-
imposed post-graduate training requirements necessary to earn a license
before an individual can practice independently. To assess the
commenters' claims that these programs see substantial earnings gains
just outside the measurement window used in the rule, we used program-
level PSEO data. These administrative data are based on individual
records that match program graduates to their annual earnings from the
U.S. Census Bureau's Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics program
at one, five, and 10 years after completion. The PSEO reports program-
level median earnings at these three intervals, linked to 2-digit or 4-
digit Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) codes for a large
number of institutions and State public higher education systems
throughout the United States. This is the only dataset we know of that
currently includes program-level earnings for programs from a broad
selection of institutions, credential levels, and fields of study with
such long follow-up.
We limited the dataset to programs and cohorts that had non-missing
median earnings at all three intervals. We then grouped programs by
credential level and focused here on graduate programs, where
commenters noted post-graduate training requirements.
The PSEO data do have some important limitations. First, they cover
a subset of States and not all sectors within each State (e.g., in many
States, only public institutions report data). For privacy reasons,
data are not reported at the finest CIP level. For example, the PSEO
data reports earnings for professional doctoral programs, such as MDs,
at the 4-digit CIP level. These programs comprise about 10 percent of
the programs that are in the data we analyze. However, the PSEO reports
master's and doctoral research/scholarship degrees, which account for
about 90 percent of the graduate programs in the data we use, at the 2-
digit CIP level. For many programs, 2-digit CIP groups can include a
wide range of programs. Still, this is the only dataset that allows us
to measure program-level earnings for a wide range of programs across
the country at multiple time intervals that include earnings outcomes
at least five years after students graduate. Ultimately, we observe
median earnings for 7,856 graduate programs for the graduating cohorts
of 2001, 2004, 2006, and 2007.
The commenters raise the concern that some programs will have
particularly fast earnings growth after the third year after
completion, suggesting that prior to earning their independent license
their earnings three years after graduation were suppressed by the
government-imposed requirement. In the PSEO data, we estimate 3-year
median earnings as the average of the 1-year and 5-year median earnings
available in PSEO.\130\ Figure 1.2 below compares these estimated 3-
year median earnings (on the x-axis) to the 10-year median earnings (on
the y-axis), focusing on all graduate programs with available data. The
figure shows that, in general, early career earnings are highly
correlated with later career earnings: the correlation in the 3 vs. 10-
year post-graduation median earnings is 0.74. The ``best-fit line'' in
the figure (fit with a simple ordinary least-squares regression)
illustrates the estimated linear relationship between the average 10-
year measure and the estimated 3-year measure. Most programs have
higher earnings when measured 10 years from graduation than 3 years
after graduation, reflecting the fact that earnings tend to grow with
experience for most workers. While most programs are centered around
the best-fit line, there is an obvious cluster of graduate programs
that have much higher 10-year median earnings than would be expected
based on their 3-year earnings. The professional programs in Medicine,
are all in the outlier group in the figure. Within the 2-digit CIP code
of ``Health Professions and Related,'' there are some programs within
the group of outliers, as well as programs that are not outliers in
terms of their earnings growth. Though we do not show the relationship
here, there is no similar group of outliers for BA programs evident in
the PSEO data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ We replicated these analyses focusing on earnings growth
from 1 year after graduation to 5 years after graduation and found
qualitatively similar results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
[[Page 70039]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC23.001
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C
Some commenters pointed to programs that prepare students to become
mental health clinicians, including Clinical Psychology and Marriage
and Family Counseling, which require post-graduate work to obtain a
license. We have limited ability to analyze these programs in the PSEO
data since the master's and doctoral research and scholarship programs
for these fields are lumped with other health and psychology programs
in those broader 2-digit CIP categories. The PSEO data does have data
for Clinical, Counseling, and Applied Psychology professional doctorate
programs in the PSEO data, but there are only a very small number of
these programs in the data, preventing a robust view of the earnings
growth of these programs.
Social Work is somewhat different from the other programs in that
graduates with a master's in Social Work (MSW) pursue a variety of
fields, and not all of them require a clinical license.\131\ The first
column of Table 1.3 below shows the number of graduates with an MSW
each year, based on an annual census of social work programs by the
Council on Social Work Education.\132\ The second column shows the
number of first-time licensing exam takers, based on data from the
Association of Social Work Boards.\133\ Under the assumption that MSW
graduates take their exam three years later, this leads to an estimate
of approximately 60 to 70 percent of graduates taking the exam. Using a
6-year cohort period for all MSW graduates may not therefore be
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ See, for example, Salsberg et al. (2020). The Social Work
Profession: Findings from Three Years of Surveys of New Social
Workers.
\132\ See, for example, Council on Social Work Education (2022).
Annual Statistics on Social Work Education in the United States.
\133\ See, for example, Association of Social Work Boards
(2022). 2022 ASWB Exam Pass Rate Analysis Final Report.
Table 1.3--MSW Graduates and First Time LCSW Exam Takers, by Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First-time
MSW LCSW exam
graduates takers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011........................................... 20,573 9,100
2012........................................... 22,441 9,604
2013........................................... 22,677 10,879
2014........................................... 25,018 12,217
2015........................................... 25,883 13,044
2016........................................... 27,659 14,007
2017........................................... 27,270 16,095
2018........................................... 27,296 16,022
2019........................................... 29,546 17,207
2020........................................... 31,750 16,801
2021........................................... .......... 20,657
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, there appears to be some possibility that, similar to
programs in medicine, some other programs that provide training to
licensed mental health professions may also generate significant
earnings growth following a post-graduate training period. At present,
detailed data do not exist to evaluate which groups of programs by
credential and CIP code are likely to
[[Page 70040]]
have outlier earnings growth, but over time such data will become
available in the College Scorecard. For example, program median
earnings measured five years after completion should be available by
early 2024. One area of complication is that the career paths of
graduates of some mental health training programs are more diverse, and
not all graduates might seek to become licensed.
In light of the evidence presented by commenters and the
Department's analyses, we adopt a data driven process to identify
qualifying graduate programs where we will use a longer cohort period
to measure the earnings of graduates six years, rather than three,
after they graduate. The Department selected an initial set of these
fields based on evidence currently available to the Department
suggesting that graduates of such programs may have constrained
earnings three years after graduation as a result of government imposed
postgraduation training requirements. Data in the College Scorecard
will eventually allow more accurate assessments of which programs
experience atypically high growth in graduates' earnings that are
potentially due to postgraduation training requirements. Going forward,
the Department will use these data, combined with an information
request to the field to identify groups of programs (at the credential
level and CIP code level) where A) state or other government
postgraduation requirements exist that are likely to lead to delays in
program graduates being able to practice independently; and B) programs
are outliers with regard to their earnings growth relative to programs
at the same credential level.
The Department will use a standard statistical procedure to
determine whether groups of programs (graduate fields of study, defined
by their credential level and CIP codes) are outliers with regard to
their earnings growth. The Department will use College Scorecard
measures to calculate the percent growth in the median earnings of
program graduates between one- (or three-) and five-years (or ten-
years) postgraduation. Lastly, a qualifying graduate program must have
at least half of its graduates obtain licensure in a State where the
postgraduation requirements apply. Since the rule is based on measuring
the earnings of the median graduate, this requirement means that the
student with median level of earnings is likely to have their earnings
outcomes influenced by the training requirement.
Changes: We modify the definition of ``cohort period'' in Sec.
668.2 so that earnings for the 2-year cohort period are measured six
years after graduation for completers in ``qualifying graduate
programs,'' rather than ``a program where students are required to
complete a medical or dental internship or residency.'' Similarly, we
modify the definition of ``cohort period'' so that earnings of
completers of a qualifying graduate program for the 4-year cohort
period are measured the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth award years
prior to the year for which the most recent earnings data are available
from the Federal agency with earnings data at the time the D/E rates
and earnings premium measure are calculated.
We then add to Sec. 668.2 and define a ``qualifying graduate
program,'' which (a) establishes an initial list of graduate degree
fields (defined by their credential level and CIP code) that
potentially qualify for this longer cohort period used for earnings
measurement for the first three years after the effective date of this
rule; (b) establishes a regular data driven process the Department will
use to update that list after the initial period; and (c) specifies
further criteria that institutions must attest apply to a program to
deem it a qualifying graduate program.
We define an initial list of potentially qualifying graduate
programs whose students are generally required to complete a
postgraduation training program to obtain a license to practice
independently in the following fields: medicine, osteopathy, dentistry,
clinical psychology, marriage and family therapy, clinical social work,
and clinical counseling. These fields were selected based on credible
evidence presented to the Department that program graduates are subject
to lengthy, government-imposed, postgraduation training requirements;
and graduates' earnings may be constrained by these requirements for at
least three years after they graduate from a program.
A program is considered to be an outlier in terms of its earnings
growth if its growth is more than two standard deviations higher than
the average earnings growth among programs with the same credential
level. A graduate degree field (defined by credential level and CIP
code) will be considered to have outlier earnings growth if at least
half of the individual programs in the field have outlier earnings
growth.
In using the College Scorecard data to determine which graduate
fields are outliers in terms of earnings growth, we seek to identify
programs that have atypically high earnings growth between the first
three years after they graduate, and subsequent years. In practice, the
College Scorecard measures earnings 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-years (the 5-
and 10-year measures are planned, but not yet available, though will be
after the initial period) after graduation. Accordingly, to measure
whether programs have outlier earnings growth we will base our
assessment on the comparisons available in these data. Defining a
program as an outlier based on whether its earnings growth is two
standard deviations above the mean is rooted in a common statistical
approach for defining outliers.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ There are several common ways of defining statistical
outliers in a distribution, including by measuring how many standard
deviations an observation's value is from the mean or by measuring
the distance of a value from the 25th or 75th percentile of a
distribution in terms of multiples of the interquartile range. In
defining a single observation as an outlier it is more common to use
a threshold of three standard deviations away from the mean. We use
a more lenient two standard deviation standard for any single
program, in part because we require that a majority of programs in a
graduate field are outliers in order for that field to meet the
outlier earnings test to be on the list of potentially qualifying
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will conduct this process every three years to balance a desire
to stay up to date with current practices around licensure and training
requirements, while ensuring institutions have stability in how the
metrics of the rule will be calculated for their programs. In
identifying postgraduate training requirements, we limit the rule to
those that typically take at least three years to complete. This
accommodation is meant to apply to programs where graduates' earnings
capacity three years after graduation is constrained due to not yet
having a required license. If training requirements took only one or
two years to complete, graduates' earnings would not be constrained at
the point when earnings are typically measured three years after
graduation and the accommodation would not be necessary.
Programs with a credential level and CIP code included in the list
of potentially qualifying graduate degree fields are eligible to have
their earnings calculated under the extended cohort period (with a six-
year lag before earnings are measured) if the institution attests that
A) if necessary for the license for which the postgraduate training is
necessary, that it is accredited by an agency that meets State
requirements; and B) at least half of the program's graduates obtain
licensure in a State where the postgraduation requirements apply.
We have also made conforming changes to refer to a ``qualifying
graduate program'' in Sec. 668.408.
Comments: One commenter mentioned that medical residency length
varies by specialty, so the D/E
[[Page 70041]]
rates calculation should allow for individualized time to license for
programs with medical residency, not just an overall extension that is
the same for all programs.
Discussion: We acknowledge that different medical specialties have
different residency lengths. It is not feasible, however, to adapt
different cohort periods for every student depending on the type of
residency they pursue. We believe that establishing a 6-year lag before
earnings are measured gives the vast majority of students in such
programs time to complete residency requirements and measure their
early career earnings.
Changes: None.
Tipped Income
Comments: Many commenters expressed concerns about our ability to
fully capture earnings in sectors where gratuities play an important
role in the compensation structure of employees, such as many jobs
associated with cosmetology. These commenters lamented the widespread
underreporting of income of this form to tax authorities, but claimed
it posed a major obstacle to the Department's ability to capture the
complete earnings picture for workers in such situations. These
commenters also argued that this phenomenon of tax evasion was not the
fault of institutions, and they should not face sanctions as a
consequence. Several other commenters pointed to past Department
statements about the prevalence of the underreporting of tipped income.
These commenters believed that the estimates expressed in those
statements support modifying our earnings measurement methodology.
Discussion: In the NPRM, the Department addressed its views on the
challenges posed by unreported income of any sort. In the NPRM section
titled ``Process for Obtaining Data and Calculating D/E Rates and
Earnings Premium Measure (Sec. 668.405),'' we explained the rationale
for relying on administrative income data collected by a partner
Federal agency. There are several reinforcing reasons why we choose to
rely on reported income to the Federal Government. These reasons
include: individuals are legally required to report their income
subject to Federal taxation; the Department relies on reported income
in its administration of the title IV, HEA programs, including with
respect to Pell grant eligibility, subsidized loan eligibility, and
income-driven repayment payment determinations; past experiences with
the earnings appeals process suggests it does not improve the quality
of information available to assess program performance; and new
research on the prevalence and scope of unreported income and its
effects on the accuracy of earnings measures.
As the Department explained in the NPRM, individuals who fail to
report taxable income in a manner consistent with Federal law are
subject to considerable legal penalties.\135\ In an increasingly
digitized economy, new Federal law in the American Rescue Plan Act
lowered to $600 the reporting threshold for when a 1099-K is issued,
which will result in more third-party settlement organizations issuing
these forms.\136\ Relatedly, the increasing prevalence of electronic
payment methods and the decline in cash transactions should lessen the
concern of tax evasion as a source of error in our measurement of
graduates' earnings. The anonymity of cash transactions makes it
possible for the exchange of goods and services to take place without a
record, facilitating evasion.\137\ With digital transactions, however,
records of the transactions are kept, not only by business owners but
also by the payment processers. This record of payments exposes would-
be evaders to elevated risk of apprehension in the case of an audit.
Consequently, there are now greater practical hurdles to evading
Federal tax reporting since the Department last regulated GE programs
with respect to D/E rates. As we noted in the NPRM, this is not to deny
that some fraction of income will be unreported despite legal duties to
report, but instead to recognize as well that legal demands,
technology, payment practices, and other relevant circumstances have
changed.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ 88 FR 32300, 32335 (May 29, 2023).
\136\ The 1099-K form reports payments from payment card
companies, payment apps, and online marketplaces and is required to
be filed with the IRS by these third-party settlement organizations.
In 2021, a statute was enacted that reduced the threshold for
reporting to $600, as opposed to $20,000 in years prior. This lower
reporting threshold means that settlement organizations will likely
have to file 1099-K forms for a greater number of sellers and
transactions. See Public Law 117-2 (2021) (govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-117publ2/html/PLAW-117publ2.htm).
\137\ Indeed, commenters frequently cited the fact that
graduates from fields such as cosmetology often operate cash
businesses as a reason to suspect such proprietors of tax evasion.
The economics literature also has cited a concern over tax evasion
as a drawback of paper currency. See, for example, Rogoff, Kenneth
(2015). Costs and Benefits to Phasing Out Paper Currency. NBER
Macroeconomics Annual,29.1: 445-456.
\138\ 88 FR 32300, 32335 (May 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPRM, the Department also explained that administrative
earnings data from the IRS play a crucial role in the HEA framework for
determining Pell grant and other aid eligibility, as well as monthly
loan payments on income-driven repayment plans. Income information
provided from official filings to the IRS are one of the primary ways
that borrowers document their income to the Department to qualify for
critical student or borrower benefits. It would be inconsistent and
imprudent for the Department to use different earnings data for similar
purposes related to the administration of title IV, HEA student aid. In
these regulations, earnings data are employed so that students might
avoid programs that leave them with very low earnings or unaffordable
debt, in part to protect taxpayer investments in the title IV, HEA
programs. More specifically, these regulations represent front-end
safeguards on the use of title IV, HEA support, which will reduce
Federal investments in ineffectual programs through loans and other
student aid and, likewise, will reduce back-end liabilities for the
Department and taxpayers when program completers default or make
reduced Federal loan payments. It would undermine the goals of taxpayer
protection if we allow borrowers to qualify for lower or zero loan
payments due to low reported earnings to the IRS, but ignore these low
reported earnings when providing students with information or
determining whether a program prepares students for gainful employment.
The Department's experience with the earnings appeal process also
cautions against making accommodations for the possibility of income
underreporting. Because institutions were permitted to offer
alternative measures of earnings through an appeals process under the
2014 Prior Rule, the Department has direct experience with the
challenge of trying to measure earnings more accurately than the
information available through administrative wage records. As the
Department noted in the NPRM, the goal of more accurate earnings data
through the earnings appeal process in the 2014 Prior Rule was
ultimately frustrated by implausibly high earnings reported through the
survey measures. Problems of accurate recall and selection bias (i.e.,
only higher earners were sampled, or they were differentially likely to
respond) among survey respondents likely impacted that earnings appeal
process and make it unlikely that a similar process would yield
improved information on a program's earnings outcomes.
The Department notes that commenters' concerns with earnings
reporting (e.g., misreporting or mismeasurement, classification of
small business income, ability to observe all
[[Page 70042]]
earners) would be more likely to occur in survey measurements of income
than in administrative records. First, the definitions of different
types of income are complicated and would require survey respondents to
recall not only those definitions but also the amount of earnings that
fit into each category. By contrast, administrative records contain
this information for all earners, often prepared by tax professionals
who are well aware of the proper definitions. To the extent that
commenters are concerned about tax evasion in reporting to the IRS, it
is hard to see why program graduates would be more forthcoming about
the true nature of their earnings on a survey, where they have no legal
obligation to report accurately, especially if such reporting would
implicate them in tax crimes. Survey data are also hard to collect
accurately, with a great deal of scholarly work in survey methodology
devoted to handling biases produced by common biases of respondents and
the difficulty in collecting representative, truthful data on all types
of individuals of interest. Given these challenges, lessons from prior
experience, and the incentives for institutions to find a sample of
students whose aggregated earnings would allow their program to
continue operating, the Department does not believe that surveys would
prove a reliable measure of earnings.
Finally, as we explained in the NPRM, new research is now
available. A 2022 study shows that earnings underreporting is likely to
be small--about 8 percent--in contrast to previous estimates that
formed part of the record for the 2014 GE rule and was a basis for
arguments in litigation over that rule.\139\ The Department's goal is a
reasonable assessment of available evidence overall, and the Department
has taken care not to rely unduly on any one study. At the same time,
the Department has accounted for evidence that puts into perspective
the low magnitude of possible underreporting that is relevant to these
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ See Am. Ass'n of Cosmetology Sch. v. Devos, 258 F. Supp.
3d 50, 59-60 (D.D.C. 2017) (stating that ``[a] report by Stanford
professor Dr. Eric Bettinger, which was submitted to the agency
during the notice-and-comment period, found that both tip income and
self-employment income are, on average, underreported by around 60
[percent]''). The report referenced by the court is Bettinger, Eric
(May 26, 2014). Imputation of Income Under Gainful Employment. We
have reviewed that report again during this rulemaking.
The recent study that we reference in the text of this final
rule and that we discussed in the 2023 NPRM is Cellini, Stephanie
Riegg & Blanchard, Kathryn J. (2022). Hair and Taxes: Cosmetology
Programs, Accountability Policy, and the Problem of Underreported
Income. Geo. Wash. Univ. (www.peerresearchproject.org/peer/research/body/PEER_HairTaxes-Final.pdf).
The 2022 Cellini and Blanchard study critiques the earlier May
26, 2014, study by Bettinger, which had estimated a much higher
level of underreported earnings for cosmetologists. See id. at 11 n.
14 (discussing Bettinger (May 26, 2014). Imputation of Income Under
Gainful Employment). See also our discussion in the NPRM, 88 FR
32300, 32336, 32346 (May 19, 2023). We independently reviewed the
Bettinger report during this rulemaking, as well as Cellini and
Blanchard's critique of it. We concur with Cellini and Blanchard
that the May 26, 2014, Bettinger report appears to include an
unrealistic overestimate of underreported total income. The
Bettinger report inflates total income by 50 percent, and the
adjustment appears to be based on an assumption about the share of
underreported tips; however, tipped income is only a portion of
total income.
We further observe that, according to a report sponsored by
Wella Company and others--with listed supporters including John Paul
Mitchell Systems, the Professional Beauty Systems, and others, and
submitted or referenced by numerous commenters during the public
comment period for this final rule, including AACS-salon owners
reported a ``high rate of tip compliance.'' Qnity Institute (2023).
A Career in Pro Beauty, at 8 (https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDownloadDocument?pubId=&eodoc=true&documentID=216592).
Specifically, that source indicates that 4 percent of salons
reported not allowing their employees to receive tips, 87 percent of
salons surveyed reported that tips were included on the W2 for all
employees, and another 5 percent of salons reported tips on the W2
for some employees; meaning that just 4 percent of salons did not
report tips for employees on W2s. See id. This report also relied on
the Cellini & Blanchard (2022) estimate of 8 percent tip
underreporting for the report's estimate of annualized earnings. See
id.
Finally, we note again that tips included on credit card
payments to a business are more likely to be reported, as we have
discussed above in the text, and it is reasonable to expect that
many workers are complying with the law to include tips in their
reported income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as we emphasized in the NPRM, the timing for measuring
earnings in this final rule differs from the timing in the 2014 Prior
Rule.\140\ This change in timing, where graduates' earnings will be
measured longer after when they graduate, will tend to increase the
measured earnings of all programs. Based on our analyses of program
median earnings estimates under the 2014 Prior Rule and those released
in the PPD, we estimate that such increases are likely to be much
higher than the 8 percent estimate of underreporting from the Cellini
and Blanchard research. Therefore, the rule already includes safeguards
against potential underestimates of earnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ 88 FR 32300, 32329-35 (May 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also seek to avoid the perverse incentives that would be created
by making the rule's application more lenient for programs in
proportion to how commonly their graduates unlawfully underreport their
incomes. We do not believe that taxpayer-supported educational programs
where benefits are provided based on reported income to the IRS should,
in effect, receive credit when their graduates fail to report income
for tax purposes. All things equal, earnings underreporting will tend
to have borrowers repay less of their loans under income driven
repayment plans. If the Department ignores lower reported earnings
among some programs, it would effectively be supporting greater
taxpayer investments in those programs. Even if that position were
fiscally sustainable, it would incentivize institutions to discourage
accurate reporting of earnings among program graduates--at the ultimate
expense of taxpayers. It could also potentially invite private
investment in training programs aimed at exploiting this weakness in
accountability for student loans that are unlikely to have to be
repaid, thereby increasing the amount of Federal funds going to
programs like these.
Given these considerations, the Department reaffirms its decision
to rely on administrative earnings reported to a Federal agency,
comparable in quality to earnings data from the IRS, without an
opportunity to appeal these earnings estimates or accommodation for the
possibility of income underreporting. To the extent that institutions
believe that underreporting is negatively affecting their program's
performance on the D/E rates and EP metrics, the Department continues
to believe that institutions are well positioned to counsel their
students on the importance of tax compliance. Indeed, many commenters
noted the role that cosmetology programs play in training their
students to run their own small businesses, including managing their
finances. Though individuals are certainly the most responsible party
for decisions about tax compliance, programs are as well positioned as
any party to inform students about the requirements and benefits of tax
compliance. Therefore, it is also important in the Department's view to
maintain incentives for programs to deliver this message as effectively
as possible.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters expressed suspicion about the quality of
our earnings data based on their own knowledge of earnings level in
their industry. In some cases, this knowledge came from employing
people in the field and marshalling evidence from the W-2 wage records
of their employees, while others provided anecdotal reports of their
own earnings or those of people they know working in the field.
Discussion: While we value the input of commenters who wish to
alert us to a mismatch between their industry experience and the
earnings reflected in the 2022 PPD released with the NPRM, we remain
confident in the
[[Page 70043]]
comprehensiveness of the data we use to assess the earnings of program
graduates. IRS earnings data are the most comprehensive source of
income available for individuals in the United States and are legally
required to be reported by all individuals who have income above a
minimum earnings level. The measures provided in the PPD come from the
College Scorecard and contain both total wages and deferred
compensation from W-2 forms, as well as positive self-employment
earnings from 1040-SE IRS forms for each completer. Only Federal
administrative sources contain such a comprehensive view of earned
income. The quality and reliability of this data is reinforced by the
many commenters who cited their own business's W-2 earnings as evidence
of typical earnings in their industry. Indeed, one commenter conducted
(and some others cited) a study of earnings in a segment of the beauty
industry by compiling W2 records for a sample of independently owned
salon businesses with 1-10 locations. These attempts to estimate
earnings underscore the advantages of Federal administrative data, as
it provides a comprehensive repository of the records commenters put a
great deal of effort into collecting. However, whereas commenters
report information from only W-2 records they have immediate access to
through their own businesses, or through surveys of a convenience
sample of employees with response rates of 11 percent, IRS
administrative records have no such gaps in data collection or
limitations in coverage to individuals in a particular set of
employers. What is more, the data available to the Department through
its data match with the IRS allows it to observe self-employment income
through the 1040-SE records it has access to, a source of earnings not
available to commenters.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters argued that in lieu of constructing an
accountability framework based on reported earnings, the Department
should focus its efforts on encouraging or requiring tax compliance
among employers in industries where cash tips are prevalent.
Discussion: Though the Department fully endorses tax compliance for
all legally obligated parties, it recognizes that enforcement of those
rules is under the purview of the IRS. In addition, as outlined in the
NPRM and the Department's above responses about unreported income, the
Department does not believe there are strong reasons to make
accommodations for the possibility of income underreporting.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters noted recent changes in tax law requiring
electronic third-party payment processors to issue a 1099-K for dollar
amounts as low as $600, a fact relevant to the ability of workers who
use such electronic transfer payments to have those payments go
undetected. One commenter noted that because this change will likely
increase tax compliance and mitigate any underreporting issue, the
Department should delay implementation of the regulations until the
earnings years used in the rule were covered by this change, which was
first applied to the 2022 tax year.
Discussion: As the Department explained in the NPRM and its
response to commenters with regard to the underreporting of income, the
changes to 1099-K reporting requirements for third party settlement
organizations is an important change in the landscape of tax compliance
since the last time the Department expressed a view on the extent of
underreported income in administrative earnings data. However, while
this change certainly buttresses the Department's confidence that
currently there is not a more reliable source of earnings information
for all occupations, it is not the decisive factor, and therefore the
Department does not view the delay of the law's implementation as
grounds to delay implementation of either the Transparency Framework or
the GE standards.
Changes: None.
Unearned and Self-Employment Income
Comments: Some commenters noted that self-employment is common for
some fields and that accurate income measurement could be difficult for
individuals in such circumstances because individuals often choose to
keep income in their business or may be able to count business expenses
against their total income to reduce their taxable income. In
particular, one commenter expressed concern that earnings captured on
form 1040 schedule SE would not be included in graduates' incomes. One
commenter asserted that the Department has acknowledged limitations in
its ability to capture self-employment earnings in the Master Earnings
File and claims no adequate remedy has been proposed.
Discussion: The earnings data in the PPD used to conduct the
Regulatory Impact Analysis come from the College Scorecard data, which
matches title IV, HEA recipient data for completer cohorts to three-
year earnings information from the IRS. As the technical documentation
for the College Scorecard explains, these data contain ``the sum of
wages and deferred compensation from all non-duplicate W-2 forms and
positive self-employment earnings from IRS Form 1040 Schedules SE
(Self-Employment Tax) for each student measured.'' As noted elsewhere,
the Department believes these are data are well-suited for the purposes
of these regulations.
Changes: None.
Inclusion of Non-Completers
Comments: Several commenters provided feedback about our choice to
exclude non-completers from our calculation of official measures of
program performance, including the D/E rates and EP measures. Some
mentioned the possibility of including non-completers in the
information provided to students through the financial value
transparency framework. One commenter supported including non-
completers because they represent such a large share (the majority) of
students in higher education. Another recognized the value of including
non-completers but argued against it for the purposes of constructing a
consumer information tool. The remaining commenters opposed the use of
non-completers for these measures, arguing that most students were
concerned with results for students who complete their programs.
Discussion: Though the Department recognizes the importance of
considering the experiences of students who do not complete a program
for understanding student success in any field, we believe that
tracking results for completers is the most practical approach to
assessing outcomes. That approach bases the median earnings measure on
students who have had the full benefit of the educational experience at
the institution, and that measured debt levels reflect the cost of
obtaining the credential. While we agree that institutions should be
accountable for helping their students attain a degree, these
regulations focus primarily on promoting a balance between financial
costs and benefits to students of different credentials. Still, the
rule includes completion rates at the institution or program level
among a set of supplemental performance metrics that may be included in
the program information website to provide this added context to
students.
Changes: None.
Median and Mean--Sec. Sec. 668.403 and 668.404
Comments: A number of commenters disagreed with the Department's
[[Page 70044]]
proposal in the NPRM to use the median earnings amount for the D/E
rates measure and the EP measure. Many commenters noted that in the
2011 and 2014 Prior Rules, the Department used the higher of the mean
and median earnings amount as the denominator for the debt-to-earnings
rate and these commenters suggested that approach should be applied to
calculate earnings for the D/E and EP metrics in this rule as well. One
commenter noted that the Department's rationale in the text of the 2014
final rule for using the higher of mean and median earnings was
grounded in a concern about the impact of a large number of zero
earnings individuals in a completer cohort. In general, quantile
statistics such as the median have the drawback of instability if there
is a large dispersion of the data near a given quantile point.
One commenter presented a simple example, if a program had five
earners (putting to one side the fact that such a program's earnings
would be privacy suppressed) whose earnings were $0, $0, $0, $50,000,
and $50,000, their median earnings would be $0. However, if just one of
those $0 estimates switched to $50,000, the median would switch to
$50,000 as well. The question presented by such a case is whether the
mean earnings ($20,000 in the first case, $30,000 in the second) better
conveys what graduates typically earn at such a program than the $0
median.
The 2014 Prior Rule argued that in such cases the mean is the
better reflection of what students can expect than the median. It
concluded that in cases where the median is the higher of the two
statistics, the mean should be preferred because it reflects high
levels of employment in higher earning jobs. Such an example is evident
in our second case above, where the median earnings would be $50,000,
but the mean is $30,000.
Discussion: As the Department explained in the 2023 NPRM's
Background Section,\141\ the Department has changed its view on the
tradeoffs presented by the advantages and disadvantages of these two
measures of central tendency and has concluded that the median is the
correct measure. This view is grounded in the fact that the median
reflects the minimum earnings level achieved by at least half of a
program's graduates, a meaningful measure of student earnings that
reflects the experience of the majority of students. Based on data
released in the 2014 rule, the median and mean earnings of programs are
often very similar. Mean earnings are most commonly higher than median
earnings of program completers at programs with very low earnings
levels. In such programs, most graduates may have earnings close to
minimum wage earnings, but there may be some outlier observations with
higher earnings--leading the mean to be higher. Again, we believe it is
more appropriate to base the rule on the median earnings, since it
indicates the amount of earnings that half of graduates exceed, and it
is not as sensitive to outlier observations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ 88 FR 32300, 32311 (May 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department notes that the commenter's example with just five
earnings estimates provides some useful insight into potential
limitations of the use of median earnings, but gives an overly dramatic
sense of the stakes between the mean and median in the context of the
rule. Under these rules, the Department only calculates earnings when
there is a minimum of 30 completers in a cohort. With more
observations, the difference in earnings among observations near the
median is likely to be much smaller than in the commenter's example and
so additions of one higher or lower earner will tend to change the
median only slightly. On the other hand, an addition of a single
extremely high earner could influence the mean substantially, even
though outcomes for nearly all students are left unchanged. We view the
potential of this latter type of distortion as much more likely and
therefore prefer the median.
The Department also believes it is important to be consistent
across measures by using same statistic to measure both program
graduates' earnings and to construct the earnings thresholds to
calculate the earnings premium. The Department cited evidence in the
NPRM that mean earnings levels among high school graduates in a State
are always higher than median earnings levels because of the large
rightward skew of the earnings distribution created by very high
earners in income distributions. Using the higher of mean and median
earnings in the construction of each State's high school earnings
threshold would thus result in a much higher EP threshold for programs
to meet. Given our concerns with the representativeness of the mean in
the earnings context, we believe such a standard would be an
inappropriate comparator for programs. Taken as a whole, we believe the
correct choice for both setting an earnings threshold and measuring
program graduates' typical earnings against that threshold is to use
median earnings.
Changes: None.
Part-Time Employment
Comments: Many commenters mentioned that workers often choose
fields such as cosmetology for their flexible work schedules, allowing
them to combine part-time work with other valuable activities such as
childcare. Working fewer hours means lower annual earnings, they say,
but that hourly rates remain very strong and show that many jobs are
still lucrative given the number of hours employees in these sectors
are working.
Discussion: We acknowledge that many workers may choose to pursue
occupations with work schedules that suit their lives. Regardless of
the hours that individuals choose to work, we believe it is important
that students who borrow earn enough in total to be able to afford
their debt payments. For the earnings premium metric, we do not
condition on full-time employment in measuring the median high school
earnings of individuals in the same State. We therefore compare the
earnings of program graduates to high school degree earners in the same
State, some of whom are also making similar choices to work part-time.
Changes: None.
Graduates Who Earn Higher Degrees
Comments: One commenter expressed concern about the exclusion of
graduates who earn higher degrees from a program's data, since these
students may ultimately have higher earnings.
Discussion: In measuring median earnings under the rule, we exclude
program completers who are enrolled full-time in a postsecondary
program in the year their earnings are measured. Otherwise, however, we
will not exclude individuals who may subsequently have gone on to earn
a higher credential. As a result, if one program helps students attain
higher credentials and thereby higher earnings, that will be reflected
in the programs outcomes.
Changes: None.
Earnings Data
Comments: Some commenters expressed suspicion whether the IRS data
sources were accurate, with concerns often centering around differences
between the incomes reported in the Program Performance and other
government sources such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As a result,
some commenters argued, schools should have the ability to examine
earnings data.
Discussion: The disparities between the earnings data in the PPD
and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in
[[Page 70045]]
particular stem from a difference in what these two sources attempt to
measure. Whereas the PPD measures earnings for all individuals who
graduate from specific programs, regardless of the industry they enter
(or whether they find any formal employment at all) 3 years after
completion, the BLS data cited by the commenters measures the
distribution of earnings for individuals who successfully work in a
given industry, irrespective of their path into the industry or the
stage of their career. It is, therefore, not surprising that these two
data sources would differ in the earnings they observe; they estimate a
different value for a different population. As we explained in the NPRM
and elsewhere in this preamble, we believe that administrative earnings
records from the Federal Government matched to the specific students
who graduated from a given program is the correct way to measure
program earnings outcomes. We believe it is much more appropriate for
its purpose than aggregated statistics for whole sectors of the
economy, which do not have any necessary relationship to the outcomes
of graduates of particular programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted that there is no provision for
adjusting the 2021 and 2022 earnings for inflation, in contrast to
earnings data provided on the College Scorecard. The commenter noted
that we did not explain was given in the NPRM about the rationale for
this difference, even though it could affect earnings measurements.
Discussion: The D/E rates metric is a ratio of debt payments
divided by earnings or discretionary earnings. For presentation
purposes, debt and income numbers from previous years may be translated
into more current year dollars on the program information website to
facilitate interpretation. But outcomes under the D/E rates metric
would not be affected if we do so since both the numerator and
denominator would be subject to the same inflation adjustment. For the
EP metric, again since both program earnings and the earnings threshold
would be adjusted by inflation, the pass/fail outcome of each program
is not influenced by the adjustment. Still, the Department may present
the EP with such an adjustment on the Department's website and in other
communications to facilitate interpretation.
Changes: None.
Completers With No Income
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department change its
calculation of median earnings for programs by excluding individuals
with no reported income and then also removing the same number of
individuals from the debt cohort, where those individuals are selected
for having the highest debt burdens out of the cohort for that program.
The rationale, they explained, was that it is unfair to assume zero
earnings reflects inability to find work.
Discussion: While the Department recognizes that often individuals
choose to leave the labor force for reasons that do not reflect their
ability to find a job, we believe that, especially with respect to the
career training programs covered by the accountability provisions of
the regulations, students typically have a strong interest in being
employed in the three-year window directly after graduation. As a
result, we believe measuring median earnings, and including those with
zero earnings, among completers is the best way to capture the labor
market outcomes of program graduates, including both the likelihood
that they find employment and the earnings among those who are
employed.
Changes: None.
Individuals in Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary (CTP)
Programs
Comments: One commenter indicated that the Department should not
exclude students enrolled in CTP programs from GE requirements, arguing
that such students were particularly vulnerable and, despite being
ineligible for Direct Loans, could exhaust their Pell Grant eligibility
while enrolled in poor-performing CTP programs. The commenter asked the
Department to consider other options to ensure the quality of CTP
programs.
Discussion: Although we agree with the commenter that it is
important that CTP programs are of adequate quality, we do not believe
that applying the Financial Transparency metrics to CTP programs is the
appropriate method of ensuring program quality. As stated in the NPRM,
the Department does not believe it is appropriate to apply either the
earnings premium or D/E metric to CTP programs. Since students in CTP
programs are not required to have a high school credential, it would be
inappropriate to judge a CTP program's earnings outcomes against the
outcomes of individuals with a high school diploma or the equivalent.
And, since these students also are not eligible to obtain Federal
student loans, debt-to-earnings rates would be meaningless for these
programs.
Changes: None.
Data Sources
Comments: Some commenters expressed concern that the Department has
not definitively determined the Federal data source that will provide
the earnings data used to calculate the D/E rates and EP measures.
These commenters further argued that this indeterminacy does not allow
the public adequate opportunity to comment on their choice of data
source.
Discussion: The Department provided an adequate notice and
opportunity to comment on the proposed rules regarding earnings data,
as well as the subjects and issues involved in choosing among data
sources. Although the Department has not finalized its data source for
the administration of these rules, we have confidence in the
reliability of all Federal agency sources under consideration. We
believe it is prudent for the long-term efficacy of the rules to retain
the flexibility to change data sources if future changes in law or data
collection practices and availability make impracticable the use of
whichever source might be best to use today. At the same time, the
Department's NPRM informed the public about the kind of data needed for
the rules, as well as the sources from which those data might be drawn.
Indeed, in the NPRM, the Department expressed its current preference
for the use of the IRS data that already forms the basis of the
earnings measures in the Department's College Scorecard data, and that
is used for the Regulatory Impact Analysis in this rule. Comments were
welcome on the data types and data sources that we could use in the
final rule, including any specific concerns about the Department's
preferred options. The Department did, in fact, receive a number of
comments regarding those issues--for example, on whether administrative
data capture self-employment earnings or whether other survey-based
sources of earnings might be appropriate substitutes--and we have
responded to those comments elsewhere in this document.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters pointed to salary aggregation websites
such as salary.com and ZipRecruiter as alternative data sources, either
to support claims about the pay increases their students would see
after an initial supervisory or apprenticeship period post-graduation
or to dispute the facial validity of the Department's earnings
estimates for some types of programs.
Discussion: As with other data sources provided by commenters to
challenge the accuracy of the data provided through the PPD, the
[[Page 70046]]
Department would like to emphasize the comprehensiveness of its Federal
administrative data and the reasons that it should be used instead of
external sources that do not have a census of earnings records directly
matched to the individuals who complete a given program of study.
Websites such as those mentioned by commenters use a variety of
methods to estimate earnings for a field, but none of these methods
come close to the coverage of the IRS data used to obtain program-level
earnings. Instead, they rely on sources such as job listings or self-
reported income from website users or other survey sources. By their
nature, these methods try to estimate the data we directly obtain from
Federal administrative sources. In addition, these external sources
provide industry-wide estimates of earnings, regardless of worker
experience or background, and often miss the earnings of program
graduates who work in a different occupation than that the program
intends to train students for, as well as students who may not find
work altogether. We do not believe that these sources provide any
reason to doubt the accuracy of Federal administrative data, and more
broadly believe they are not an appropriate data source to assess the
performance of particular programs for our present purposes.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed concern that institutions would
not be able to collect income information from their students, because
it would be a large burden and because students would be unwilling to
(and should not have to share) personal income information. This
commenter also suggested that the State should collect such
information.
Discussion: The regulations in this rulemaking do not require
institutions to collect earnings information for their students. The
Department will obtain the relevant earnings information through a
Federal agency with administrative earnings records.
Changes: None.
Minimum N-Size for Earnings and Debt Metrics
Comments: One commenter noted that they interpreted the remarks of
the Department as implying that we would consider a look-back period of
2 to 6 years to develop a cohort of a minimum of 30 students. The
commenter objected to the longer look-back period, arguing that such a
long period cannot account for any improvements in policy that a
program may have made in more recent years.
Discussion: The Department will use a 4-year cohort (i.e.,
combining completers who graduate over 4 consecutive award years) when
a 2-year cohort is insufficient for a n-size of 30. The Department has
not considered a period that is broader than 4 years. The use of a 4-
year cohort, when needed, will enable the Department to include data
from more programs in the D/E and EP measures.
We note that some lag in the metrics between when students complete
a program and when the data is produced is inevitable if we wait
several years to measure the earnings of program completers. As
discussed elsewhere we believe the 3-year lag to measure earnings is
appropriate to allow graduates a period to find employment and settle
into their early careers, and the broader lag stems from this choice.
For a period after the effective date of the rule, however,
institutions can choose to report data for transitional rates on more
recent cohorts' information for calculating median debt levels. During
this transition period, changes to programs' borrowing outcomes will be
reflected more rapidly in the D/E rates published by the Department.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested analysis of additional n-sizes
beyond the assessment of 10 and 30 completers, as we discussed in the
NPRM. They suggest allowing the minimum n-size to vary by program
depending on the need for privacy considerations, or for the rule to
include flexibility in the determination of n-size.
Discussion: An n-size of 30 is consistent with past Department
practices, including the policy governing the development of cohort
default rates, as well as IRS data policy. We recognize that a lower n-
size would include more programs, but we believe the n-size of 30
completers over a four-year period is appropriate to protect the
privacy of individuals who complete smaller programs, and we project
will result in coverage of over 80 percent of students receiving
Federal student aid (as documented in the RIA).
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters posited that excluding D/E rates for
programs with fewer than 30 students completing during a 2- or 4-cohort
period rewards public and private nonprofit programs with poor
graduation rates.
Discussion: As detailed in the RIA, many programs have very few
completers in any given year, and such programs are indeed more
prevalent among public and private nonprofit institutions. Still, the
more relevant measure of coverage of the rule is the share of students
covered. As we explain in the RIA, with these privacy safeguards in
place we expect to be able to publish metrics for programs that enroll
over 80 percent of federally aided students in both the GE and non-GE
programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter supported the approach to calculate median
debt based on at least 30 completers in an applicable cohort.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for their support.
Changes: None.
Measurement of Debt
General Opposition
Comments: Several commenters argued that the rule is too lenient
because of reasons such as: it does not include all types of debt in
the calculation of D/E, does not take into account other debt metrics
such as repayment rates, and because graduate student have longer
amortization periods. One commenter argued that the leniency leads only
a small subset of programs to be subject to the metrics and that many
programs are immune from the accountability metrics.
Discussion: The regulations will provide stronger protections for
students of programs where typical students have high debt burdens or
low earnings. The share of student enrollment that is covered under the
rule is much higher than the share of programs that is covered because
there are many very small programs with only a few students enrolled
each year. As discussed in the RIA, we estimate that more than half of
all programs have fewer than five students completing per year and
about 20 percent have fewer than five students enrolled each year. The
Department believes that the coverage of students based on enrollment
is more than sufficiently high to generate substantial net benefits
from the policy. We believe that the number of students, rather than
programs, covered by the rule is the more important consideration
because the benefits, costs, and transfers associated with the policy
almost all scale with the number of students (enrollment or
completions) rather than the number of programs.
We do not agree that the Department arbitrarily chose which types
of debt to include in the D/E rates calculation. For most borrowers, we
measure substantially all of their debt, including private and
institutional loans. We exclude parent PLUS loans because
[[Page 70047]]
parents--and not the students--are responsible for repaying those
loans. Finally, we cap this debt at the net direct costs charged to a
student in deference to consistent concerns from institutions that they
cannot directly control students' borrowing for living expenses.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters criticized the Department for only
applying GE rules to the for-profit sector. The commenters argued that
4-year degree programs (administered at private nonprofit and public
institutions) saddle students with more debt than shorter programs;
however, these programs are not subject to accountability under GE.
These commenters argued that the notion that for-profit institutions
saddle students with debt at the taxpayers' expense is misguided and
not the source of the affordability problems in higher education.
Discussion: The GE regulatory provisions do not measure total debt
in isolation. Rather, the regulations hold programs accountable for the
ratio of debt to earnings. Although debt may be higher for graduates of
some 4-year programs (at private and public institutions), it is
reasonable to expect typical earnings to also be higher at programs
that lead to students borrowing large amounts. The rule will require 4-
year programs at for-profit institutions to pass the D/E and EP
metrics, and the rule includes transparency provisions for non-GE
programs, including 4-year degree programs, that fail D/E metrics to
provide information about the program. Further, GE provisions in the
HEA apply only to GE programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter does not believe institutions should be
held accountable for student borrowing because institutions' financial
aid departments do not have control over how much students borrow.
Specifically, the commenter noted that institutions are required to
offer students loans up to what they are offered, even if that exceeds
the cost of tuition and fees.
Discussion: Under Sec. 668.403, we cap the debt counted for
institutions at the costs of tuition and fees and books and supplies.
Institutions have a role in how much they charge to attend programs and
in the earnings of their students. These regulations encourage students
to attend programs where their debt levels are not likely to be
burdensome relative to their earnings.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter questioned whether large loan balances are
the primary reason for default, as opposed to students' choice or
preference to not repay loans or changes in financial and repayment
circumstances. The same commenter questioned the use of default rates
while the Department is pursuing Fresh Start.
Discussion: This rule focuses on the ratio of debt to earnings and
an earnings premium, not on default rates. The Department will use the
D/E rates measure to assess the affordability of the debt students
incur to pay for their educational program. Regardless of students'
decision to make loan payments, a program's D/E rates will be the same.
Changes: None.
Debt Capped at Net Direct Costs
Comments: Several commenters supported the modification to cap the
median loan debt at tuition and fees net of institutional grants rather
than the amount assessed.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters argued that the Department should reduce
the total debt number by the amount of any Federal or State grant funds
that the student received and used to pay tuition and fee costs. These
commenters argued that some students borrow to cover living expenses
even when they have received State and Federal aid to cover tuition and
fees. These commenters suggested that to ensure that institutions are
not held accountable for funds borrowed in excess of what is required
to pay for tuition and fees, the Department should reduce the total
debt number by the amount of any Federal or State grant funds that the
student received and used to pay tuition and fee costs.
Two other commenters suggested that the Department deduct ``outside
scholarships and grants intended for direct costs from the capped
tuition and fees'' in the D/E metrics, recommending that the Department
net-out both institutional and external grant aid.
Discussion: The Department will deduct only grant controlled by the
institution from the estimate of charges for direct costs used to cap
individual borrowers' debts. The institution controls institutional
grants but would typically not control State grants or external
scholarships.
Additionally, under Sec. 668.403, median debt is calculated by
capping the total amount of each student's borrowing at the charges for
direct costs (tuition, fees, books, and supplies), minus any
institutional grant aid the student receives. Therefore, the Department
does not hold institutions accountable for loans taken out in excess of
direct costs as the commenters suggest. One way that programs can lower
their D/E metric is by controlling their net direct program costs--that
is, by lowering tuition or providing greater institutional aid.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters suggested that the Department include
all student debt (not just debt for tuition, fees, books, equipment,
and supplies) in the measurement of debt. A few commenters argued that
until the Department restricts borrowing to course delivery, the
Department should count all debt regardless of what it is used for.
Discussion: The measurement of debt will cap each student's amount
borrowed at the total net direct costs charged to a student. This is in
part in deference to institutions' concerns that borrowing for the cost
of living is not directly under the control of the institution, whereas
institutions can exercise more control over the direct costs charged to
students.
Another reason to cap the measurement of debt at direct charges is
that it mitigates the influence of differences in students' family
income background on measured median debt levels across programs, since
some of the additional borrowing of low-income students relative to
higher income students is due to borrowing for living costs.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated that the Department should not
remove institutional grant aid from cost of attendance in the
measurement of program debt.
Discussion: This rule departs from the 2014 Prior Rule in
subtracting institutional grants and scholarships from the measure of
direct costs. This change, as described in the NPRM, was in the
interest of fairness to institutions that provide substantial
assistance to students. Since this type of aid is more common among
non-GE programs than GE programs, this change in approach is related to
the fact that under subpart Q, the D/E rates will be computed for all
types of programs rather than only GE programs as was the case in the
2014 Prior Rule.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the Department exclude loans
borrowed for programs at the institution--other than the one from which
the student graduated. The commenter contended that, to establish
[[Page 70048]]
a true estimate of debt associated with the program a student
completes, the attribution provisions should only apply to debt
associated with credits from a non-completed program that transfer into
the student's ultimate program or that share the same CIP code, or
career programs completed at the institution, or both.
Another commenter noted that when students transfer between
programs, or when a student enters an institution and does not declare
a major, attributing debt to a particular program becomes complex.
A few commenters suggested that the Department include all student
debt incurred as of graduation, not just debt incurred for a particular
program. These commenters recommended that we hold institutions
accountable for the overall financial well-being of their students. The
commenters also noted that many programs admit students knowing that
they incurred debt from other programs at the same institution or at
other institutions. The commenters also highlighted the relevance of
the inclusion of all debt for stackable credentials.
Discussion: The Department excludes loan debt incurred by the
student for enrollment in programs at other institutions (with the
potential exception of when institutions are under common ownership or
control). We do not believe it would be fair to hold institutions
accountable for debt incurred at other institutions not under their
control. We agree that attributing debt to programs within institutions
is complex and believe the most reasonable way to do so is to assign it
to the highest credentialed program subsequently completed by the
student at the institution (within undergraduate and graduate levels).
The measurement of debt is based on program completers.
Changes: None.
Parent PLUS Loans
Comments: Many commenters supported exclusion of parent PLUS loans
from the median debt calculation. Commenters noted that parent PLUS
loans are serviced by parents' earnings, so these loans should not be
included in a measure of the student's debt service obligations.
Commenters also noted that the inclusion of parent PLUS loans in debt
service might logically suggest also including parental earnings in D/E
rates calculations.
Discussion: We agree with commenters in support of exclusion of
parent PLUS loans. We exclude parent PLUS loans because parents are
responsible for repaying those loans, and treating the debt service
associated with those loans as a burden to be paid out of the students'
earnings may not be appropriate for many students.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters suggested that the Department include
parent PLUS loans in calculation of debt for D/E ratios. One commenter
argued that excluding parent PLUS loans benefits programs serving
mostly dependent students. The commenter also contended that since
independent students are ineligible for parent PLUS loans, excluding
these loans increases debt for programs serving primarily independent
students. The commenter claimed that while the Department states that
students are not responsible for repaying parent PLUS loans taken out
by a family member, many students nevertheless assist their parents
with repayment of these loans. Another commenter argued that the
exclusion of parent PLUS loans fails to account for the true amount of
debt and unreasonably benefits degree-granting programs at public
institutions. Several other commenters claimed that by excluding parent
PLUS loans, the Department is undercounting debt obligations and
creating a loophole for institutions. Institutions could shift the
financial burden of financing higher education from the institution or
the student to the parents. One commenter suggested that the Department
exclude Direct PLUS loans from measure of debt.
Discussion: The primary purpose of the D/E rates is to indicate
whether graduates of the program can afford to repay their educational
debt. Repayment of parent PLUS is ultimately the responsibility of the
parent borrower, not the student. Moreover, the ability to repay parent
PLUS loans depends largely upon the income of the parent borrower, who
did not attend the program. We believe that including in a program's D/
E rates the parent PLUS debt obtained on behalf of dependent students
would cloud the meaning of the D/E rates and would ultimately render
them less useful to students and families.
The commenter contended that not including parent PLUS loans
increases debt for programs serving primarily independent students.
This statement is not accurate, because including parent Plus loans
would not impact (positively or negatively) the median debt for a
program that serves predominantly independent students who are
ineligible for parent PLUS loans. By not including parent PLUS loans,
the median debt is not increased as the commenter suggests. Rather,
exclusion of parent PLUS loans creates an accurate assessment of the
student's ability to repay loans as discussed above.
We remain concerned, however, about the potential for an
institution to steer families away from less costly Direct Subsidized
and Unsubsidized Loans towards parent PLUS in an attempt to manipulate
its D/E rates. We have addressed this concern, in part, by proposing
changes to the administrative capability regulations at Sec.
668.16(h), which would require institutions to adequately counsel
students and families about the most favorable aid options available to
them.
While distinct from the rationale for excluding parent PLUS loans,
we note that, for the vast majority of programs, a minority of students
are recipients of parent PLUS loans and so their inclusion would affect
the median debt of a program only infrequently.
Changes: None.
Comments: A commenter stated that loan debt from parent PLUS loans
disproportionately impacts low-income and Black and Hispanic families
and contributes to the Black-White racial wealth gap. This commenter
suggested that the Department either include parent PLUS loans in the
debt measure or impose restrictions on the use of parent PLUS loans
that would make it harder for institutions to ``game the system.''
Specifically, the commenter offered as an example, that the Department
could set limits on the percentage of a school's funding that comes
from parent PLUS loans or require that students exhaust their title IV,
HEA borrowing options before taking out parent PLUS loans.
Discussion: The Department shares the commenter's broad concerns
about parent PLUS loans. As explained above, however, the Department
does not believe that this rule is the appropriate vehicle to address
these concerns.
Changes: None.
Cancelled Debt
Comments: One commenter proposed that the Department remove any
student debt discharged or cancelled, including as the result of a
national emergency, from the D/E rates calculations.
Discussion: The Department may discharge or cancel debt for a
variety of reasons, including if a student becomes totally and
permanently disabled, if a student completed 10 years of payments while
working for an eligible public service employer, and in circumstances
where an institution may have made misrepresentations to students,
among other reasons. These actions to discharge or cancel loans do not
absolve or change an institution's obligation under the GE regulation
to offer
[[Page 70049]]
programs that provide graduates with earnings sufficient to repay their
education debt. For instance, discharges through borrower defense to
repayment are due to acts or omissions by the institution. Excluding
such discharges from the GE program accountability framework would
create a situation where an institution that is found to have engaged
in substantial misrepresentations ends up with reduced debt amounts for
GE purposes. A similar rationale applies for false certification
discharges. In addition, were we to exclude closed school discharges,
an institution at risk of failure would have incentives to close some
locations to improve their performance on metrics under the GE program
accountability framework. Other discharges, such as those tied to
Public Service Loan Forgiveness or income-driven repayment are unlikely
to be relevant for consideration here because they take at least 10
years for forgiveness, which is longer than the timeframes under
consideration for the GE program accountability framework.
However, consistent with the 2014 GE rule, the Department will
exclude students with one or more loans discharged or under
consideration for discharge based on the borrower's total and permanent
disability or if the borrower dies. We exclude these students (from
both the numerator and denominator of the D/E and EP measures) because
under the HEA a student with a total and permanent disability is unable
to engage in substantial gainful activity for a period of at least 60
consecutive months and thus their ability to work and have earnings or
repay a loan could be diminished under these circumstances, which could
adversely affect a program's results, even though the circumstances are
the result of student events that have nothing to do with program
performance. Similarly, an institution would not be able to anticipate
if a borrower passes away.
Changes: None.
Reduced Program Hours
Comments: One commenter proposed that the Department create a
process for schools to report on programs where they reduced the hours
and, therefore, student debt in recent years. The commenter contended
that this will allow institutions to correct the debt of previous years
that did not reflect the current program using the same CIP code.
Discussion: The Department acknowledges that institutions may
attempt to improve their program outcomes following the introduction of
rates. The transitional D/E rates discussed in the NPRM allow non-GE
programs to report information to calculate debts for the most recent 2
award-years, rather than for the same completer cohorts (who generally
graduated about 5 years earlier) as used to measure earnings outcomes.
Based on comments received, we have modified the final rule to extend
this option to all programs. This will allow improvements in borrowing
outcomes to be reflected in the D/E rates.
Changes: We have extended the option to report transitional rates
information necessary to compute median debt for more recent cohorts to
GE programs.
High Debt Holders Eliminated Based on Data Limits
Comments: Many commenters questioned eliminating the highest debt
holders based on the number of students without earnings data and
believes the Department's basis for doing so is arbitrary and
unspecified.
Discussion: The Department is subject to limitations in data access
that necessitate our approach. When the Federal agency with earnings
data provides the Department with the median earnings of students who
complete a program, it will also provide an estimated count of the
number of students whose earnings information could not be matched or
who died. We remove that number of the highest loan debts before
calculating the median debt for each program. Since we do not have
individual-level information on which students did not match to the
earnings data, we remove those with the highest loan debts to provide a
conservative estimate of median loan debt so that we do not
overestimate the typical loan debts of students who were successfully
matched to earnings data.
Changes: None.
Debt Service Payments Calculations
Comments: A few commenters expressed concerns with the calculation
of the annual debt service amounts for a typical borrower at a program
that serve as the basis for the debt-to-earnings ratios. The commenters
disapproved of amortizing the median program debt balance according to
the method described in the regulation rather than calculating the
actual annual debt service levels observed for program graduates under
the terms of their loans and chosen repayment plan.
A couple of commenters noted that the interest rates used to
calculate D/E rates do not correlate with the actual interest rates of
the student loan portfolio. The commenters recommended that the
Department revise the annual loan payment calculation to reflect the
actual repayment terms of the individual student, including the
amortization period and interest rate.
Discussion: Actual loan payments depend on a variety of factors,
including which repayment plans borrowers elect. Programs with the same
levels of borrowing and the same earnings outcomes could have median
graduates with different realized loan payments, then, depending on the
share enrolled in various plans. Similarly, changes in the set of plans
available might lead actual loan payments to change even with no
changes in borrowing or labor market outcomes. Using estimated yearly
debt payments that are a function of how much students borrow should
focus institutions on the goal of ensuring that their programs are ex
ante not requiring students to take on unaffordable debt, given the
expected earnings of their graduates. The Department disagrees that the
interest rates used to calculate D/E rates do not relate to the actual
rates of the student loan portfolio. We do not attempt to average the
interest rates of the actual loans of student in the completion cohort,
but rather take a simpler approach of taking an average of the interest
rates on Direct loans over a span of years when completers were likely
to borrow. This simpler approach yields much greater transparency and
predictability to institutions in how their D/E rates will be
determined, while still being likely to accurately reflect borrowing
costs in most cases.
Changes: None.
Comments: Commenters suggested that the Department use the same
amortization period for all programs. These commenters argued that when
borrowers repay over a longer period, this is a sign that the debt is
less affordable. Specifically, commenters argued that the 10-year
standard should be used across programs regardless of level.
Discussion: Section 668.403(b), provides for three different
amortization periods, based on the credential level of the program for
determining a program's annual loan payment amount. This schedule will
account for the fact that borrowers who enrolled in higher-credentialed
programs (e.g., bachelor's and graduate degree programs) are likely to
have incurred more loan debt than borrowers who enrolled in lower-
credentialed programs and, as a result, are more likely to select a
repayment plan that would allow for a longer repayment period. The
longer periods for higher level programs also
[[Page 70050]]
correspond empirically with the fact that borrowers in longer programs
tend to take more time to repay. A further benefit of the longer
amortization period for longer programs is that it provides some
adjustment for the fact that longer programs often have higher earnings
growth beyond the 3-year period used to measure earnings for most
programs. As noted above, waiting longer to measure earnings results in
the data being more backward looking and less recent. The longer
amortization period provides some adjustment without sacrificing the
recency of the metric's availability.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter proposed that the Department use a fixed
interest rate to calculate median debt for the D/E rates. The commenter
noted that interest rates are out of the control of the institution and
not an indicator of education quality. The commenter proposed that a
fixed interest rate be used with the most generous loan payment option
available to students in the cohort.
Discussion: The D/E rates are designed to indicate whether
graduates can afford to repay their educational debt. Therefore, the
calculation uses interest rates over the years that students were
likely to have borrowed to calculate median debt, since those interest
rates affect the debt service costs that students will need to pay.
Changes: None.
IDR and Debt Payment Calculations
Comments: Several commenters argued that the Department should
consider income-based repayment options available to students in the D/
E rates calculation. A few commenters noted the loan payment
calculation used for the D/E rates is substantially higher than the
real monthly payments that borrowers are subject to because of these
repayment programs. To improve accuracy of this estimate, and fairness
of the regulation, these commenters suggested the Department use
expected payments under an income-driven repayment (IDR) plan for D/E
rates calculations. By not including repayment plans, these commenters
asserted that there is a misconception about the ability of an
institutions' graduates to satisfactorily make their loan payments.
A few other commenters argued that the availability of income-based
and income-driven repayment programs makes all student debt affordable.
The same commenters argued that as long as these programs exist (and
students enroll in these programs) the D/E metric is not necessary
because all student debt is affordable to students through these
repayment plans. One of these commenters argued that use of the D/E
rates to indicate affordability is therefore arbitrary and capricious
because loan payments for students in repayment plans do not the
measures of debt used in the D/E metric. Several commenters noted that
the availability of the Revised Pay as You Earn (REPAYE) program
renders the D/E rates misleading since no borrower is actually required
to pay off loans under a standard repayment plan.
Similarly, another commenter suggested that the D/E measure should
incorporate loan repayment programs such as the National Health Service
Corps Loan Repayment Program (LRP), Indian Health Service LRP, Health
Professions LRP, and the Veterans Affairs Specialty Education LRP.
According to this commenter, failure to consider these repayment
programs may adversely affect medical schools whose students commit to
public service.
Discussion: As we noted in the NPRM, income-based and income-driven
repayment programs partially shield borrowers from the risks of not
being able to repay their loans. However, such after-the-fact
protections do not address underlying program failures to prepare
students for gainful employment in the first place, and they exacerbate
the impact of such failures on taxpayers as a whole when borrowers are
unable to pay. Not all borrowers participate in these repayment plans;
where they do, the risks of nonpayment shift to taxpayers when
borrowers' payments are not sufficient to fully pay back the loans they
borrowed. This is because borrowers with persistently low incomes who
enroll in IDR--and thereby make payments based on a share of their
income that can be as low as $0--will see their remaining balances
forgiven at taxpayer expense after a specified number of years (e.g.,
20 or 25) in repayment. For these reasons, the Department disagrees
with the commenters who believe that no debt limit should matter for
the D/E metric to make the program affordable to students.
As explained in the NPRM, the purpose of the D/E rates is to assess
whether program completers are able to afford their debt, including
program completers who do not enroll in IDR or other repayment plans
intended to help protect students from excessive payments. The
Department recognizes that some repayment plans we offer allow
borrowers to repay their loans as a fraction of their income, and that
this fraction is lower for some plans than the rate used to calculate
the D/E rates. However, we decline to set acceptable program standards
at a rate that would allow institutions to encumber students with even
more debt while expecting taxpayers to pay more for poor outcomes
related to the educational programs offered by institutions. Instead,
we view the D/E rates as an appropriate measure of what students can
borrow and feasibly repay. Put another way, under the D/E rates
calculation, the maximum amount of borrowing is a function of students'
earnings that would leave the typical program graduate in a position to
pay off their debt without having to rely on payment programs like
income-driven repayment plans.
The Department understands that other debt repayment plans for
particular fields exist as well, but views these analogously to the
Department's own IDR plans. Moreover, these loan repayment programs,
while generous, affect only a small fraction of borrowers. For example,
in fiscal year 2021, the National Health Service Corps made fewer than
7,000 new Loan Repayment Program awards and the Nurse Corps made about
1,600 LRP awards.\142\ The Association of American Medical Colleges
estimates that there were about 21,000 graduates of US medical schools
in per year in the most recent few academic years, and during the same
time period, the number of first time candidates taking the national
Nurse Licensing Exam (NCLEX-RN) has totaled over 160,000 annually.\143\
This means that these loan repayment programs are used by only a
fraction of students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ The NHSC Loan Repayment Program (LRP) currently includes
LRP programs for clinicians working at Indian Health Services
facilities. See Indian Health Service (n.d.). NHSC Loan Repayment
Program. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Indian Health
Service (retrieved from https://www.ihs.gov/loanrepayment/nhsc-loan-repayment-program/). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Health Resources and Services Administration (2021). Report to
Congress: National Health Service Corps for the Year 2021 (available
at https://bhw.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/bureau-health-workforce/about-us/reports-to-congress/report-congress-nhsc-2021.pdf).
\143\ See Association of American Medical Colleges (2022). 2022
FACTS: Enrollment, Graduates, and MD-Ph.D. Data (https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/students-residents/data/2022-facts-enrollment-graduates-and-md-Ph.D.-data). National Council of State
Boards of Nursing (2023). 2022 NCLEX[supreg] Examination Statistics
(Vol. 86). National Council of State Boards of Nursing, Inc. ISBN
979-8-9854828-2-9 (retrieved from www.ncsbn.org/public-files/2022_NCLEXExamStats-final.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
D/E Metric
Support
Comments: Two commenters noted that the D/E metric is a critical
means to identify programs that do not serve
[[Page 70051]]
students. According to these commenters, it will help protect students,
particularly students from marginalized communities, from entering low-
value programs.
Discussion: We thank commenters for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted that D/E rates can be accurately and
rapidly calculated using data available to the Department, are easy for
students and institutions to understand, and are hard for institutions
to manipulate or circumvent.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for their support.
Changes: None.
General Opposition
Comments: One commenter noted that graduate students are
sophisticated and should be able to make decisions on their own based
on evaluating costs and benefits. Allowing the Federal Government to
signal its opinion or remove funding unfairly limits a student's right
to choose the program according to this commenter.
Another commenter suggested that the D/E measure should not apply
to graduate programs, since their undergraduate experiences affect
future earnings.
Discussion: Graduate debt is growing as a share of Federal
borrowing. While we might hope that graduate students' relative
sophistication would result in fewer students taking on unaffordable
debt, the data described in the RIA show that many graduate programs
still lead to unaffordable debt. This problem may partially be
addressed by the transparency provisions in subpart Q of these final
regulations, which would for the first time produce accurate
information on the net prices of graduate degree programs to better
inform students about costs. Given the very high debt levels associated
with some graduate programs, however, we seek to protect borrowers and
taxpayers from all programs that consistently leave most of their
graduates with unaffordable debts. Among non-GE programs, we will
provide D/E and EP information to students and require acknowledgments
at high-debt-burden programs to make sure students have this
information when they make their choices. GE programs that consistently
leave students with high debt-burdens will lose eligibility to
participate in the title IV, HEA programs.
With respect to the influence of undergraduate experiences,
students pursue graduate education expecting that they will benefit
from additional education. The rule requires measurement only of the
debt students acquire at the graduate level when measuring the D/E
rates of graduate programs yet credits the program with the entirety of
a students' earnings (as opposed to the increment to those earnings
added by attending the graduate program). Regardless of the extent to
which students' undergraduate experience influences their earnings,
their graduate debt should be affordable given what they can earn
following program completion.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter contended that the rule rewards low
graduation rate programs with higher typical salaries than would be the
case with an acceptable graduation rate. According to this commenter,
the Department should downward adjust earnings levels for low
graduation rate programs and upward for higher graduation rate
programs.
Discussion: The median debt and earnings information underlying the
metrics in the rule are based on completers. For debt, the goal is to
capture the full amount students need to borrow to obtain a credential.
For earnings, we use completers' median earnings to better reflect the
value of fully completing the program. While we agree in principle that
accounting for completion rates may be additionally useful, in practice
it is infeasible to measure program level completion outcomes given
that students often do not enroll in a specific program at entry (i.e.,
students enrolling in longer programs with overlapping general
education requirements often begin undeclared), making it impossible to
define completion cohorts. More generally, we believe the measures as
defined are a reasonable compromise in measuring the debt and labor
market costs of students who complete a program--a group of students
where there can be less debate about whether the program should be
responsible for their outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter proposed that D/E should include other
types of debt, such as automobile loans and credit cards.
Discussion: The Department cannot definitively tie non-student loan
debt that students acquire, such as automobile loans and credit card
debt, to the student's pursuit of a degree. The D/E metric aims to
measure how well a GE program prepares students for gainful employment
in a recognized occupation. Data on the other debt students might incur
is not readily available to us and, more importantly, is outside of the
scope of our regulatory authority.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters warned that it is unclear how D/E is
calculated for undeclared students.
Discussion: The D/E rates are calculated based only on students who
graduate from a program. Students initially undeclared are counted in
the program where they graduate at a given credential level, and the
debt they accumulate at that credential level is included in their
total debt.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters contended that the D/E metric prevents
institutions from developing new programs, because an institution that
offers a new program will not have students completing within 6 years.
Discussion: In instances where a program does not have data to
calculate the D/E rates, such as for a new program, there would simply
be no D/E metric available. There are no eligibility consequences for a
program with no D/E or EP rates available. Additionally, we do not
believe the rule would discourage an institution from creating new
programs unless the institution expected the program to eventually lose
eligibility due to high-debt burdens or low-earnings.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters argued that it is unfair to not allow
programs to improve or reintroduce a program once it has failed.
Another commenter contended that the Department should not penalize
an institution if it responsibly ends a program that produces failing
D/E rates in its final years.
Discussion: The rule allows institution to report transitional D/E
rates based on median debt outcomes for completers in the two most
recent award years for a temporary period. This affords institutions
the opportunity to improve their programs in response to the metrics
produced for their programs. After this transitional period where
institutions can improve their measures, the metrics become more
backward-looking, so this opportunity is diminished.
If a program loses eligibility under the rule or if an institution
voluntarily discontinues a failing program, the institution may not
launch a similar program for 3 years. As we discussed in the NPRM, we
intend for this waiting period to protect the interests of students and
taxpayers by requiring that institutions with failing GE programs take
meaningful corrective actions to improve program outcomes before
reintroducing a similar program with
[[Page 70052]]
Federal support. The 3-year period of ineligibility closely aligns with
the ineligibility period associated with failing the CDR, which is the
Department's longstanding primary outcomes-based accountability metric
on an institution-wide level.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed concern about how D/E will be
calculated for colleges and programs that do not participate in the
Direct Loan program due to the low cost of tuition and fees.
Discussion: The median debt for programs whose students receive no
Direct Loans will be zero. This means that these programs will pass D/
E.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested that students already enrolled in
a failing program should be allowed to receive title IV, HEA aid until
they complete the program.
Discussion: The Department is sympathetic to the potential
disruption for students who may continue to be enrolled in a program
that loses title IV, HEA eligibility. Institutions must issue warnings
to any student in or interested in a program if the program fails one
of the GE metrics and, therefore, faces a potential loss of Title IV,
HEA eligibility if it fails again. Hopefully this will both allow
students a chance to finish their studies, at least in shorter
programs, or to make plans to transfer if the program loses funding.
The Department believes, however that most students will be better
served by transferring to a better performing program rather than
further accumulating debt or spending time in a program where they will
be unlikely to earn enough to manage it, or not accumulate skills to
earn more than a high school graduate. Analyses presented in the RIA
suggest that most students will have other better options to which to
transfer.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters contended that the GE rule should
allow for transitional D/E rates for GE programs for a multiyear period
after the regulation takes effect.
Discussion: All programs will have transitional rates that will be
based on the debt of completers in more recent years for 6 years.
Changes: We have modified Sec. 668.408(c) to give all programs the
option to report transitional rates for the first six years after the
rule is in effect. While we believe that most institutions with GE
programs have experience reporting similar information under the 2014
Prior Rule, this change offers flexibility and alleviates burden for
some institutions to avoid reporting on cohorts that completed six
years or more previously.
Comments: One commenter recommended that since the 2014 GE rule
only included the D/E metric, passage of either D/E or EP should be
sufficient for establishing that a program prepares students for
gainful employment. Other commenters suggested that we require all
programs to pass both measures, instead of some being required to just
pass one.
Discussion: As we explain in the NPRM \144\ and elaborate upon
above, the EP measure captures distinct aspects of how programs prepare
students for gainful employment. The EP is based in part on statutory
provisions ensuring that postsecondary programs build on the skills
learned in high school and enhance a students' earnings capacity
regardless of how much they borrow. Whatever students' post-college
earnings are, it is important that their debt levels are affordable and
in reasonable proportion to their earnings. GE programs must pass both
metrics to avoid consequences. Career training programs that fail
either or both metrics in a single year will be required to provide
warnings to students that the programs could be at risk of losing
eligibility for title IV, HEA funds in subsequent years. Programs that
fail the same metric in two of three consecutive years would have lose
their eligibility. The two metrics together create the strongest
framework for protecting students and taxpayers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ 88 FR 32300, 32325 (May 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: One commenter raised concerns that institutions cannot
compel graduates to seek occupations in the field for which they train.
Discussion: The purpose of these regulations is to increase the
likelihood that students entering career training programs are given
the skills and credentials to repay their student loans and earn more
than they would have had they not attended a postsecondary program.
Many students may find employment in an occupation that differs from
what the program prepared them for, and we do not penalize programs for
that.
Changes: None.
Exclusion or Inclusion of Certain Student Populations
Comments: One commenter contended that the earnings component of
the D/E rates calculation should exclude students who have a title IV,
HEA loan in military-related deferment status. The commenter believed
that including outcomes for such students in the D/E rates would be
arbitrary and exceed the Department's statutory authority, because such
students' military earnings provide no information about the quality of
the program. The commenter recommended that the Department adopt the
approach in the 2014 Rule and exclude such students.
Discussion: The Department disagrees. As we acknowledged in the
NPRM, the D/E rates calculation in these regulations differs from the
2014 Rule in certain respects. In the 2014 Prior Rule, the Department
reasoned that students with military deferments should be excluded from
the D/E rates calculations because they could have less earnings than
if they had chosen to work in the occupation for which they received
training. The final rule went on to state a student's decision to
enlist in the military is likely unrelated to whether a program
prepares students for gainful employment, that it would be unfair to
assess a program's performance based on the outcomes of such students,
and that the Department believed that this interest in fairness
outweighed potential impact on the earnings calculations and the number
of students in the cohort period.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ 79 FR 64889, 64944-45 (Oct. 31, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, we cannot now conclude with confidence that the earnings
of military personnel are unrelated to the postsecondary programs that
they completed. First, the latest Quadrennial Review of Military
Compensation (QRMC) shows how strongly correlated educational
attainment is with pay grade for both enlisted personnel and officers.
For example, in 2017 while none of the enlisted personnel at the lowest
reported pay grade (E-2) had a bachelor's degree or more, 55 percent of
those in the highest pay grade for enlisted personnel had at least a
B.A. Similarly, virtually all officers (91 percent) at the lowest pay
grade had a bachelor's degree, while 80-100 percent of the officers in
the top pay grades had an advanced degree, with that share increasing
with the pay grade. Educational attainment is clearly a key component
of pay grade in the military, and program quality is a key factor in
attainment.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ See tables 2.1 and 2.1 in Department of Defense (2020).
Report of the Thirteenth Quadrennial Review of Military
Compensation, Volume I, Main Report (https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/QRMC-Vol_1_final_web.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More broadly, program quality determines the skills a student will
receive and have available to them on the job. Whether that job is in
the military or in some other field with a
[[Page 70053]]
step-and-lane-style pay schedule, skill is still an important
determinant of job success and pay, if for no other reason than more
skilled employees (or military personnel) have more opportunities for
advancement. That can be as simple as promotion to Officer, but it also
includes opportunities such as the military's opportunities for service
members to be trained in designated military skills or career fields,
which require special advanced training or educational credentials in
key fields that military seeks to promote. Training in these fields can
earn personnel a bonus upon completion of their role, plus whatever
career advancement comes from a military career in those valued
fields.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ Department of Defense, Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) (n.d.). DoD 7000.14--R: Military Pay Policy--Active
Duty and Reserve Pay, Volume 7A (https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Volume_07a.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, including these earners would likely raise the median
income measured for their particular program because this group of
program completers are demonstrably employed, and because, as the
latest QRMC demonstrates, the military has long sought to (and
surpassed) a goal of paying service members at a level equivalent to
the 70th percentile of comparably educated and experienced civilians.
Nevertheless, there is still a possibility that this group of program
completers may have earnings that do not otherwise support the debt
they incurred. Servicemembers should receive the same consumer
protections afforded to other student borrowers from their GE program
completer cohort. Accordingly, the Department has concluded that their
earnings should be reflected in the data that we use to provide
information about and evaluate GE programs supported by title IV, HEA
student assistance. This conclusion is reasonable and, as we explained
in the ``Reliance Interests'' section of the NPRM, this approach does
not implicate any significant reliance interests.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the Department should
consider programs with fewer than 30 students as ``passing due to
insufficient data.'' The commenter contended that this label may help
to mitigate the incentive for schools to cap program enrollment at 29
students.
Discussion: In principle, the Department agrees that ``passing due
to insufficient data'' is one appropriate label for programs that have
too few completers in the applicable cohort for metrics to be issued.
That label conveys potentially helpful information, and we may use that
or similar language to describe programs in the future. We note that
these rules specify the conditions under which programs pass or fail
the D/E and EP metrics (Sec. 668.402), along with the conditions under
which the Department does not issue the D/E rates or the EP measure
because of an insufficient number of completers (Sec. Sec. 668.403(f)
and 668.404(d)). Those rules do not require the Department to use
particular labels to describe programs that are subject to these
metrics. At the appropriate times and consistent with these rules, the
Department will make the necessary choices regarding the details of the
Department's program information website, through which student
acknowledgments will be administered (Sec. Sec. 668.407(b) and
668.605(c)(3), (g)), as well as the warnings with respect to GE
programs (Sec. 668.605).
Changes: None.
Comments: One comment expressed concern about how to calculate the
data for students that do not complete their program of study because
they choose to enter the workforce once they gain a certification in a
program.
Discussion: Students who do not earn a credential are not counted
in the earnings or debt metrics for a program. If a student does not
complete an associate degree after obtaining a certificate, that
student would be counted in the completer cohort for the certificate
program. We may expect that student's earnings would be less than their
earnings would have been if they completed the associate program, but
so, too, would their debt. Regardless, we expect the majority of
students completing a certificate to out-earn individuals with only a
high-school diploma and to not have a high debt-burden.
Changes: None.
Discretionary D/E Measures
Comments: One commenter posited that D/E has a low correlation with
a measure of return on investment (ROI) that the commenter themself
created. The commenter then compares pass/fail under GE to pass/fail
under their personal formula to assign whether they think a program
``correctly'' or ``incorrectly'' passes or fails. The commenter uses
such comparisons to recommend changing amortization periods for
graduate students and that the D/E rate should be assessed on the basis
of the annual earnings rate alone.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestions, and analysis
of how this rule's parameters could be modified to better align its
pass/fail outcomes with the commenter's own estimates of program-level
ROI. However, there are numerous issues with the commenter's
methodology that do not make it an appropriate standard for judging
whether the metrics used and pass/fail outcomes in GE are ``correct''
or ``incorrect.'' This includes several self-acknowledged reasons why
the methodology systematically overestimates or underestimates ROI for
different types of programs, and assumptions that students' earnings
trajectories relative to their peers do not change over time. In
addition, the commenter's attempt to create counterfactual wages relies
on adjustments made on very broad educational credential by field of
study groups that do not reflect specific programs well.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters argued that the evidence cited for the
use of the 20 percent discretionary income threshold is not strong.
Several commenters note that the 20 percent discretionary D/E threshold
can be traced back to a 2006 report from Economists Sandy Baum and Saul
Schwartz. The commenters asserted that discretionary income is always
defined arbitrarily (i.e., attempts to draw distinctions between
discretionary and nondiscretionary expenditures are fraught with
difficulty). Other commenters contended that the (annual) D/E threshold
is based on affordability of mortgage rates and should not be used for
student debt.
Discussion: As the commenters noted, the 20 percent discretionary
D/E threshold is based on research conducted by Sandy Baum and Saul
Schwartz. Their research proposed benchmarks for manageable debt
levels, and the authors' research suggested that no student should have
loan payments exceeding 20 percent of their discretionary income. In
subsequent commentary one of the authors argued that, if anything, a 20
percent discretionary threshold for the median borrower is too
permissive and a stricter standard would be justified.\148\ Although
the starting point for their research was in the context of the
affordability of mortgage rates, their overall point stands--that it
would not be affordable for borrowers to have student debt-service
ratios beyond what is in the GE rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ See https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/devos-misrepresents-evidence-seeking-gainful-employment-deregulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked how a school could pass the
discretionary debt-to-earnings rate and
[[Page 70054]]
not the annual debt to earnings measure. According to this commenter,
if reasonable scenarios do not exist, this ratio is irrelevant and does
not provide a reasonable additional option to schools.
Discussion: We carefully explain the relationship between the two
rates in the NPRM (see Figure 1 from the NPRM and the surrounding
text). Many programs with higher levels of earnings pass the
discretionary D/E measure but not the annual D/E measure.
Changes: None.
D/E Rates Thresholds
Comments: A few commenters argued that the thresholds align with
other measures of hardship: Borrowers with student loan payments above
8 percent of income or 20 percent of discretionary income experienced
greater hardship than those with payments below these thresholds.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters requested that the Department return to
the D/E rate thresholds of 12 percent annual D/E and 30 percent annual
discretionary D/E that were used in the 2011 and 2014 Prior Rules. Some
of these commenters posited that the changes from those thresholds to
the D/E rate threshold in the NPRM is arbitrary and capricious.
Several other commenters objected to the lack of inclusion of the
``zone'' as in the 2014 Prior Rule, asserting that without the zone,
programs could fail because of fractions of a dollar in the GE
calculation or that programs do not have the space to make necessary
program changes.
Discussion: The Department considered these concerns and decided to
base the thresholds upon expert recommendations and mortgage industry
practice--that is, the 8 and 20 percent thresholds for annual and
discretionary D/E, respectively. The 12 and 30 percent thresholds used
in the ``zone'' were selected by adding a 50 percent buffer to these
evidence-based thresholds, so as to give institutions that were
``close'' to the D/E thresholds an additional year to potentially
improve their performance.
In the final rule, the Department has adopted a transition period
where institutions can report debt information for more recent
completion cohorts. This provision is similar to a transition provision
that was included in the 2014 Prior Rule under 34 CFR 668.404(g) that
permitted institutions to use updated program costs in the outcome
calculations for 5 to 7 award years, depending upon the length of the
program. The transition period for these regulations will allow any
improvements in the cost structure of programs to more rapidly be
reflected in institutions' D/E rates.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters stated that the 8 percent annual D/E
threshold would preclude for-profits from offering BAs and eliminate
many Associate of Arts (AA) programs. The commenters believe these
institutions will be forced to lower tuition; therefore, this imposes a
price cap on for-profit and vocational institutions.
Discussion: Programs must pass either the annual D/E threshold of 8
percent or the discretionary D/E threshold of 20 percent. For programs
with higher income levels, the discretionary rate is more likely to
apply, which allows median debt levels to be higher relative to median
earnings levels. The RIA shows that the majority of proprietary
associate and bachelor's programs do not fail the D/E metrics. We
disagree with the commenters' assertion that institutions will be
forced to lower tuition to pass the D/E rates, as the final rule allows
institutions to set tuition or find additional student resources so
that students' borrowing levels are reasonable in light of their
typical earnings outcomes and so that students do not take on more debt
than they can reasonably manage.
Changes: None.
Programs With Low Borrowing Rates
Comments: Some commenters suggested that the Department should not
subject programs with only a few borrowers to the D/E metric or should
use a different metric for them. According to this commenter, a program
with a small percentage of borrowers overall that does not meet the
debt to earnings ratio would jeopardize the Pell Grant eligibility for
the entire program.
Discussion: Programs with few borrowers are very unlikely to fail
the D/E rates measure. We calculate median debt among all title IV, HEA
recipients, including those who receive only Pell grants. As a result,
if the majority of program completers do not borrow, the median debt of
program completers will be zero. The program will, therefore, pass the
D/E metric. This acknowledges the affordability of programs where many
or most students do not need to borrow to attend the program. As a
result, we see no risk that programs with few borrowers will lose title
IV, HEA eligibility as a result of the D/E provisions of rule.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter believed that non-borrowers will not look
at the D/E ratios because they are not relevant to them.
Discussion: The D/E metric is primarily a measure of debt
affordability, capturing the share of a typical graduate's annual
earnings that will need to be devoted to loan payments. Under the
transparency provisions in Sec. 668.407, only prospective students
will provide acknowledgments prior to enrolling in an institution.
While ultimately those with no intention of borrowing may not be
concerned with potential loan payments, prospective students may find
information about the D/E rates of different programs helpful as an
indicator of the labor market success of those programs' graduates, the
costs of the programs, or both. More importantly, the information may
inform their choice of whether to enroll in the program, and if so
whether to borrow to attend. The rule will create more transparency on
earnings outcomes and the net price of programs, however, and we expect
that non-borrowers will find that information most salient. Moreover,
we also expect the D/E ratios to be relevant to borrowers.
Changes: None.
Earnings Premium Metric
General
Comments: Many commenters expressed support for the EP measure as a
``common sense'' threshold to measure completer earnings against.
Discussion: We thank commenters for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters suggested that the EP measure is
arbitrary, not sufficiently studied, and not backed by research
evidence.
Discussion: The Department believes that the EP threshold, which
uses the median State-level earnings of high school graduates in the
labor force, is an intuitive benchmark for both policymakers and
prospective students. Comparison to the earnings of those with only a
high school diploma has long been a measure of the effectiveness or
value of completing a given post-secondary credential in research
literature.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ See for example, see Goldin, Claudia & Katz, Lawrence F.
(2010). The Race Between Education and Technology. Cambridge:
Harvard Univ. Press. Baum, Sandy (2014). The Higher Education
Earnings Premium. Urban Institute (www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/22316/413033-Higher-Education-Earnings-Premium-Value-Variation-and-Trends.PDF)--among other numerous examples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70055]]
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the EP threshold should be
higher to account for a student's need to repay the loan debt incurred
in connection with the credential.
Discussion: The Department recognizes that calculating a ``net
earnings premium'' that subtracts from the EP some measure of the
(amortized yearly) costs of college or debt service payments may
provide a reasonable measure of the financial gain to completing a
program in some contexts. However, under the rule, we will use the EP
measure to assess whether students who complete a program are better
off, strictly in terms of their earnings, than individuals who never
attended a postsecondary program. The calculation of this measure is
unaffected by the costs students might incur to attend the program. The
measure applies even for a student whose education expenses might be
entirely covered by grant aid. We note that the D/E rates are intended
to assess a cohort's ability to afford the debt they borrow to pay the
direct costs of attending the program, so we do not additionally
account for program costs in the EP measure.
Changes: None.
Earnings and Location
Comments: Many commenters suggested that earnings vary
substantially within a given State by urbanicity. These commenters
suggested that we adjust the D/E rates or EP calculations for programs
serving students in rural areas. Some other commenters suggested using
metropolitan or micropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) to better
distinguish between earnings potential for completers within a given
State.
Discussion: Though many commenters expressed concerns about urban/
rural divides in economic opportunity, their proposed solutions often
involved calculating earnings premiums at the metropolitan area level.
There are a few reasons the Department sees this as a flawed approach.
First, as Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 23-01
outlines, Core Based Statistical Areas, such as Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSAs) ``do not equate to an urban-rural
classification; many counties and county-equivalents included in
Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and many other
counties, contain both urban and rural territory and populations.''
\150\ There is plenty of variety in the urban character of local areas
even within area designations as small as the MSA, and so calculating
earnings estimates at that level may not capture differences in labor
market opportunities by population density or other characteristics of
an area often associated with the urban/rural divide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget (2023). Revised Delineations of Metropolitan Statistical
Areas, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined Statistical
Areas, and Guidance on Uses of the Delineations of These Areas (OMB
Bulletin No. 23-01). Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same OMB bulletin further warns that, in keeping with the
Metropolitan Areas Protection and Standardization (MAPS) Act of 2021,
agencies should be hesitant to use CBSA designations for the
administration or regulation of non-statistical programs and policies.
Our view is that while MSAs provide a useful approximation to major and
minor urban centers in a State, they do not measure a relevant unit for
the purposes of this regulation. This is especially true in the context
of postsecondary education, where students often travel outside of
their home MSA to attend school and, as a result, are likely to have
considerable cross-MSA mobility after graduation.
Our view is informed by an analysis the Department conducted to
assess the viability of measuring earnings at the metropolitan area
level. To understand the implications of such a change, we first
examined how the earnings threshold would vary across each State if it
varied for metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. The IPUMS USA
version of the ACS 5-year sample for 2019 adds the necessary
information to the PUMS data to divide households into different
geographic classifications based on the metropolitan status of the area
they live in, which the IPUMS USA describes in this way: ``[the
relevant field] indicates whether the household resided within a
metropolitan area and, for households in metropolitan areas, whether
the household resided within or outside of a central/principal city.''
Table 1.4 below shows how earnings thresholds would vary if they were
set at the median earnings for the same population (high school
graduates aged 25-34 who were in the labor force in the previous year),
divided by which type of metropolitan area those individuals live in.
Table 1.4--Median Income for HS Grads 25-34 in Labor Force, by State and Metro Status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan status
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In met. area: Met. area:
Mixed met. Not in met. In met. area: not central mixed central Overall
status area central city city city status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................................... 21,582 23,000 21,177 29,202 22,445 22,602
Alaska.......................................................... 30,000 21,307 29,675 .............. ............... 27,489
Arizona......................................................... 21,582 18,111 26,000 26,471 25,453 25,453
Arkansas........................................................ 22,527 21,902 .............. 30,000 25,569 24,000
California...................................................... ........... 25,000 26,073 26,178 26,073 26,073
Colorado........................................................ 27,500 30,000 27,000 30,107 29,322 29,000
Connecticut..................................................... ........... 31,961 22,000 29,202 25,899 26,634
Delaware........................................................ ........... ........... .............. 26,634 25,453 26,471
District Of Columbia............................................ ........... ........... 21,582 .............. ............... 21,582
Florida......................................................... 22,373 21,582 22,445 24,819 24,000 24,000
Georgia......................................................... 24,000 22,700 24,000 25,030 23,000 24,435
Hawaii.......................................................... 30,000 26,330 26,978 30,245 31,288 30,000
Idaho........................................................... 23,883 28,000 .............. 28,600 25,453 26,073
Illinois........................................................ 25,036 26,073 22,297 26,634 25,000 25,030
Indiana......................................................... 27,000 27,699 24,503 28,000 24,842 26,073
Iowa............................................................ 30,000 26,073 29,202 .............. 28,000 28,507
Kansas.......................................................... 25,569 24,819 23,438 30,544 26,073 25,899
Kentucky........................................................ 26,073 22,945 20,221 25,359 23,012 24,397
[[Page 70056]]
Louisiana....................................................... 26,073 26,500 20,024 26,386 21,000 24,290
Maine........................................................... ........... 25,453 .............. 29,830 21,798 26,073
Maryland........................................................ 26,634 ........... 22,900 29,136 26,500 26,978
Massachusetts................................................... 26,073 ........... 28,000 30,000 30,349 29,830
Michigan........................................................ 23,988 23,740 17,000 25,030 24,000 23,438
Minnesota....................................................... 30,000 27,116 25,569 31,154 27,116 29,136
Mississippi..................................................... 21,000 20,562 17,613 25,569 19,963 20,859
Missouri........................................................ 25,000 23,988 21,307 25,575 26,471 25,000
Montana......................................................... 25,030 25,453 .............. .............. 28,159 25,453
Nebraska........................................................ 29,783 29,800 21,307 34,092 25,782 27,000
Nevada.......................................................... 23,417 31,961 25,030 27,489 27,387 27,387
New Hampshire................................................... 31,961 28,057 28,057 36,652 32,373 30,215
New Jersey...................................................... ........... ........... 23,438 27,325 23,620 26,222
New Mexico...................................................... 19,548 26,741 20,400 20,859 25,453 24,503
New York........................................................ 26,000 24,405 24,700 26,978 25,000 25,453
North Carolina.................................................. 23,000 22,661 22,399 23,417 23,417 23,300
North Dakota.................................................... 33,598 27,116 .............. .............. 27,116 31,294
Ohio............................................................ 24,435 25,569 18,326 26,073 23,000 24,000
Oklahoma........................................................ 25,030 25,453 25,453 27,800 26,000 25,569
Oregon.......................................................... 23,988 23,000 25,569 29,800 24,435 25,030
Pennsylvania.................................................... 25,453 26,073 21,307 27,806 25,030 25,569
Rhode Island.................................................... ........... ........... 23,417 26,978 30,000 26,634
South Carolina.................................................. 24,718 20,362 .............. 25,860 22,900 23,438
South Dakota.................................................... 30,000 25,030 .............. .............. 29,202 28,000
Tennessee....................................................... 23,438 22,900 19,500 26,438 23,824 23,438
Texas........................................................... 25,899 25,000 24,405 28,000 25,899 25,899
Utah............................................................ 26,471 30,215 19,709 29,202 28,765 28,507
Vermont......................................................... ........... 25,000 .............. .............. 30,215 26,200
Virginia........................................................ 25,453 20,566 25,000 27,699 24,435 25,569
Washington...................................................... 27,534 25,300 30,000 31,961 29,202 29,525
West Virginia................................................... 21,582 22,661 .............. 30,544 24,196 23,438
Wisconsin....................................................... 30,000 29,617 22,160 27,116 28,507 27,699
Wyoming......................................................... 27,082 31,961 .............. .............. ............... 30,544
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 25,453 25,000 24,280 26,654 25,453 25,453
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1.4 illustrates the challenge of this approach. To the extent
that the commenters' main concern about State-level earnings thresholds
is that institutions located outside of metropolitan areas would be
disadvantaged, the data does not bear this out. In many instances, such
as Alabama, Colorado, and Illinois, the earnings threshold outside of
metropolitan areas would be higher than the current statewide standard
(displayed in the ``Overall'' column). Because many low-income people
live in cities, it is not consistently the case that metropolitan areas
or central cities have higher median incomes for high school graduates
than non-metropolitan areas. What is more, this pattern is not
consistent across States, suggesting there is not a systematic
disadvantage for non-metropolitan areas that would justify switching to
another standard that would have its own disadvantages.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters suggested using a school's location in
a Persistent Poverty County as an additional EP consideration. These
commenters proposed that we could exclude schools located in these
counties prior to the effective date of the GE rule from application of
the EP measure, or we could adjust the EP threshold for programs in
such counties downward by 20 percent.
Discussion: To understand the implications of this proposal, we
assessed whether each program would be exempt based on being located in
a Persistent Poverty County. To do this, we assigned each program to a
county based on the location of its main campus and then determined
whether that county was one of the 341 the Census Bureau determined to
be persistently poor. We then examined which institutions, and which
major cities housed institutions that would be exempt from the EP
measure if we modified the rule in this way. Below is a list of the 15
largest institutions located in a county that is Persistently Poor
under the Census's definition:
Largest Institutions With Main Campuses in Persistent Poverty Counties in Terms of Enrollment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Digit Total Number of
Institution name OPEID enrollment programs Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
University of Florida............... 1535 45,996 324 Gainesville, FL.
Temple University................... 3371 40,537 255 Philadelphia, PA.
Fresno City College................. 1307 40,431 114 Fresno, CA.
University of Georgia............... 1598 35,589 296 Athens, GA.
[[Page 70057]]
Texas A&M University................ 3632 34,089 252 College Station, TX.
Ohio University..................... 3100 33,722 190 Athens, OH.
El Paso Community College........... 10387 31,413 81 El Paso, TX.
University of Texas Rio Grande 3599 30,710 121 Edinburg, TX.
Valley.
West Virginia University............ 3827 30,592 192 Morgantown, WV.
Georgia Southern University......... 1572 30,141 111 Statesboro, GA.
East Carolina University............ 2923 30,021 172 Greenville, NC.
Brigham Young University--Idaho..... 1625 29,243 84 Rexburg, ID.
Central Michigan University......... 2243 28,126 150 Mt Pleasant, MI.
University of Texas at El Paso...... 3661 27,759 141 El Paso, TX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is a clear signal that the Persistent Poverty County
exemption would be poorly targeted from the perspective of identifying
institutions facing insurmountable economic conditions that would merit
exemption from the general standard laid out in the NPRM. A number of
the institutions on this list are major State flagship institutions
with a strong track record of graduating large numbers of students into
stable and well-remunerated employment, suggesting that being located
in these counties is not in fact outcome determinative for students in
such institutions. The exercise reveals a limitation of the approach
more generally, which is that these institutions draw on students from
a variety of different locations, and their graduates go on to work in
many different places outside the county where the institution is
located.
An additional datapoint that reveals that this measure of county
poverty may not well capture economic conditions that dramatically
impede labor market success for college graduates is the list of the 15
cities in Persistent Poverty Counties with the largest enrollment
across all institutions and programs located there:
Top Cities in Persistent Poverty Counties in Terms of Enrollment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total number
City enrollment of programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia, PA........................ 147,782 1,300
Fresno, CA.............................. 74,385 352
Brooklyn, NY............................ 72,679 340
El Paso, TX............................. 64,957 254
New Orleans, LA......................... 58,608 532
Gainesville, FL......................... 57,652 379
Bronx, NY............................... 57,528 301
Baltimore, MD........................... 51,202 542
Athens, GA.............................. 40,123 363
College Station, TX..................... 34,089 252
Athens, OH.............................. 33,722 190
Richmond, VA............................ 33,323 257
Statesboro, GA.......................... 32,570 163
Morgantown, WV.......................... 30,824 201
Edinburg, TX............................ 30,710 121
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list includes a number of the country's largest cities, as
well as a number of college towns. This gives us pause for two reasons:
first, the inclusion of major cities with both a high incidence of
poverty and vibrant economies suggests that the Persistent Poverty
County construct is not designed to capture the kind of within-county
inequality that allows deep poverty to coexist with strong labor
markets for college graduates. Second, the existence of so many college
towns suggests that the measurement of Persistent Poverty Counties may
partly be picking up places where a large fraction of the area's
residents are students who are in school and therefore not in the labor
force or working only part time, perhaps exaggerating the true extent
of poverty in the area, or at least not reflecting its likely
transience for the individuals being measured, who can expect a
significant increase in their standard of living once they graduate
from college.\151\ Additionally, in such cases we would not expect this
more transient poverty measured in college towns to be an impediment to
the earnings trajectory of students after college.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ See the Census's own analysis of poverty measurement in
college towns here: www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/10/off-campus-college-students-poverty.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Economic Swings
Comments: Several commenters expressed concern about how earnings
data would be affected by rapid downturns in the economy. Their
concerns largely regarded the lag between the economic conditions at
the time students incur their debts and when the earnings are assessed.
Other commenters argued that the EP threshold could not accurately
account for the labor market impact of national events, such as a
pandemic, or for more localized labor market events, such as a natural
disaster.
Discussion: The Department recognizes that economic conditions can
change rapidly, that the earnings
[[Page 70058]]
premium for a program during a booming economy may differ from that
premium during a downturn, and that students often make decisions about
their educational investments without a full picture of the economy
they will graduate into. Nonetheless, we believe the uncertainty around
the broader economic conditions provides more reason to monitor and
enforce rules around the economic outcomes for students who graduate
from a given program through the EP measure. One benefit of a college
education is some degree of insulation from economic downturns, and an
important measure of program quality is the robustness of its
graduates' employment outcomes to economic shocks.
The EP threshold is well suited to adjust to State or national
disruptions to the labor market. The earnings of high school graduates
tend to be much more pro-cyclical than those of college graduates. That
suggests that the EP threshold will tend to fall more in economic
downturns than will the median earnings of college graduates, therefore
buffering the impact on program outcomes. It is possible that the EP
threshold may not adjust for more localized labor market shocks at the
sub-State level. The Secretary may, however, have authority under
statute to waive or modify regulatory provisions that apply to
institutions in disaster areas or that are significantly affected by
disasters.\152\ The Department is not convinced that the rules here
should be further adapted to address such exceptional circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ See, for example, 20 U.S.C. 1098bb(a)(2)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Earnings Threshold for Graduate Programs
Comments: A few commenters suggested using a different EP threshold
for programs that issue graduate degrees. One suggestion was that we
use the median earnings of bachelor's degree recipients who majored in
the same field as the graduate degree.
Discussion: The 2019 5-year American Community Survey (ACS)
contains information on bachelor's degree fields for survey
respondents. These data are available in broad categories that
generally align with similar CIP categories. The median earnings for
those age 25-34 in the labor force with a bachelor's degree and a
recorded major category is around $46,000, reported in 2019 dollars.
The range of median earnings by degree field is substantial, ranging
from around $28,000 to $71,000.
The Department recognizes the logic of this approach, but also has
identified some substantial disadvantages. For example, the data do not
have enough individuals in the sample to provide robust State-level
estimates of median earnings for all fields of study. Further, the use
of comparable undergraduate earnings relies on the assumption that
those who seek a post-baccalaureate credential have a bachelor's degree
in a similar field. This may not be the case, however, particularly for
degrees that are less reliant on the attainment of a specific set of
undergraduate prerequisites. We currently lack comprehensive
information on the bachelor's degrees typically obtained by graduate
students in each field. The Department believes that using the same
standard for the EP for graduate programs provides some degree of
protection from programs not meeting even this low bar.
Changes: None.
ACS Earnings Measures
Comments: At least one commenter suggested that because the ACS
relies on self-reported earnings, rather than on administrative data,
these earnings metrics are not comparable.
Discussion: The ACS is a commonly used source of data on the
experiences of a representative sample of Americans and a provider of
many key economic indicators used by governments and researchers
throughout the country. The Census Bureau regularly reviews the
accuracy of the data. The survey relies on decades of experience from
nationally recognized experts to develop and constantly improve the
quality of the information provided through these surveys. The U.S.
Census Bureau has researched the accuracy of ACS income data and found
that income data from the ACS corresponds well with administratively
reported earnings measures (e.g., via employer provided W2 forms) in
IRS records.\153\ The ACS is the best available data to measure the
State-level earnings by education level used in the construction of the
earnings threshold and the commenter did not provide an alternative
source for comparable data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ See www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2016/acs/2016_Ohara_01.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted that recent earnings gains have been
largely among those in the labor force without a post-secondary
credential. When more recent years are used as the basis for the EP
threshold, this could raise the bar such that more programs fail.
Discussion: The Department believes that this comment highlights
the value of using a dynamic measure from concurrent survey data,
rather than a static benchmark. In cases where the economy improves for
those without a post-secondary credential, the EP threshold could
increase. If so, it appropriately sets a higher bar for college
programs' performance.
Changes: None.
State and National Benchmarks
Comments: One commenter argued that standards for aid programs are
set nationally--for example, a single maximum Pell grant amount, and
standard national limits for undergraduate debt by level and dependency
status. The commenter maintained that instituting different State-level
thresholds for the EP by program location runs counter to this national
framework.
Discussion: The earnings threshold is meant to proxy for the
earnings levels that a typical student might obtain if they did not
earn a postsecondary credential. As shown in the NPRM, these earnings
vary across States for a variety of reasons related to local economic
conditions, of the policies of States, Tribes, and Territories, and
other factors. For example, States establish requirements for programs,
licensing, or both. States, Tribes, and Territories also establish
requirements for earning a high school diploma and its equivalency.
Additionally, because State policy can have a substantial impact on
both aid and on local labor market conditions, the Department believes
that a State-level EP threshold is appropriate since the EP threshold
is meant to measure the earnings that a student might have obtained had
they not attended college.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters thought that the proposed regulations
needed to make more distinctions in outcomes based on the sizes of the
institutions as well as the type of educational program and said the
Department should consider the differences in the variety of jobs that
students pursue from programs that are not specialized to lead into
careers. Some concern was also expressed that there would be national
earnings for programs compared to regional earnings information for
high school graduates, as well as noting that many small programs would
not be captured under the proposed regulations.
Discussion: The financial value transparency framework is intended
to
[[Page 70059]]
provide information to students and families about average educational
debt and average program earnings using the CIP codes for those
programs. This provides students and families with useful information
not only about different programs offered at one institution, but also
to compare comparable programs offered at different institutions.
Institutions are in the best position to determine what additional
information will provide context about the impact the size of an
institution may have on the educational experience and the job
opportunities that may be available to program graduates. We note that
the average earnings provided for a program are based upon that
program's graduates and therefore have some direct connection to the
institution whose programs are at issue. This provides a reasonable
comparison with the earnings for high school graduates in that region.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested that, in place of the State-level
median earnings on ACS, the Department should use BLS data on the lower
end of earnings for a given career path. For example, the EP threshold
could be the 10th percentile of earnings for those who are employed in
a given occupation.
Discussion: BLS's Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics
contain national-level data on annual wages at the 10th, 25th, 50th,
75th, and 90th percentile, by industry code (North American Industry
Classification System) and by occupational code (Standard Occupational
Classification System). Across roughly 450 broad occupational codes,
about 11 percent of occupational codes had 10th percentile earnings of
less than $25,000 (roughly the EP threshold). Using the BLS threshold
would mean that most programs would likely be held to a higher
threshold than they would under the ACS measure, and that the threshold
would have no adjustment for geography. The Department intends the
earnings threshold to represent a benchmark level of earnings that
students would obtain had they not pursued a post-secondary credential.
As the comparison to BLS benchmarks suggest, this is a more
conservative minimum bar on which to hold programs accountable. In our
view it is the more appropriate threshold to determine whether career
training programs are preparing their students for gainful employment.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters suggested that students who earned higher-
level credentials (such as a bachelor's degree or a graduate degree)
were more likely to seek employment out of State.
Discussion: The earnings threshold is meant as a proxy for what
students would earn had they not attended college, not to put
graduates' earnings in context based on where they work after college.
Accordingly, the high school earnings levels in the states where
students come from is more relevant. We have clarified in the final
rule that if fewer than 50 percent of the students in the program come
from the State where the institution is located, the program would be
subject to a national EP benchmark, rather than a State-level
benchmark.
Changes: We revised the definition of ``earnings threshold'' at
Sec. 668.2 to clarify that national earnings are used if fewer than 50
percent of the students in the program come from the State where the
institution is located, rather than where the students are located
while enrolled.
Growth Measure for Earnings Premium
Comments: Many commenters suggested using earnings growth or an
economic mobility measure, rather than an EP threshold. Commenters
suggested that pre-enrollment earnings could be compared to post-
enrollment earnings. If the post-enrollment earnings were higher (some
comments suggested by 20 percent), then the program would pass the
earnings test.
A couple of commenters also suggested that the programs could
choose between being measured on the EP threshold or on the growth
measure. Other commenters noted that students in cosmetology programs
are often coming from very low wage jobs before entering school, so
such a pre-post comparison would reflect favorably on these programs.
Discussion: The Department agrees that pre- and post-earnings
comparisons are a theoretically attractive way to assess how well
programs boost students' earnings potential. In practice, however, such
a metric is infeasible to operationalize for the majority of programs.
For many programs, a large number of students have low pre-period
earnings because, for example, they either do not work or work a
limited number of hours, often because many are still enrolled in high
school, prior to enrollment. All else equal, programs that enroll
larger numbers of students without substantial prior attachment to the
labor force (e.g., younger students) will have calculated earnings
gains that are larger than programs with a smaller share of students
without significant prior work histories. Using administrative
Department data on undergraduate certificate programs eligible for
title IV, HEA programs, we show in Figure 1.3 that (a) the estimated
earnings gains using simple pre- post-earnings comparisons are
unrealistically large; and (b) the proportion of younger students
enrolled in the program predicts earnings gains. The estimated earnings
gains using data where many students do not have pre-enrollment data
tend to be illogically large, with the typical program having earnings
gains estimates over 10 times what is commonly found in the research
literature.\154\ While some of this relationship could be because of
differences across programs, the figure demonstrates that because
younger students having no or less robust earnings records, they will
mechanically have lower pre-period earnings and higher calculated
earnings gains. The earnings gain metrics, therefore, yield heavily
biased estimates that are meaningless in assessing program quality, and
the bias greatly disadvantages programs serving older students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ For a summary of results from selected studies related to
returns to certificates, see Table 1 from Darolia, Guo, & Kim
(2023). The Labor Market Returns to Very Short Postsecondary
Certificates. IZA Discussion Paper 16081 (https://docs.iza.org/dp16081.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70060]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC23.002
One way to address this would be to measure earnings gains only for
workers who appear to have high labor force attachment in the pre-
period, as evident by exceeding some minimum earnings threshold. In
practice, however, this would result in dramatically smaller numbers of
completers that could be used to measure earnings gains, and dramatic
reductions in the share of programs and enrollment covered by an
earnings gain metric. Based on analysis of administrative data, we
approximate that at least half of programs that had sufficient student
volume to calculate median student earnings would no longer have
sufficient data if students without labor force attachment were
excluded. These limitations make an earnings-gain measure infeasible,
at least give current enrollment patterns.
Changes: None.
Age Range for Measuring Earnings
Comments: Several commenters raised reservations about the timing
of earnings measurement for the high school graduates to which each
program's completers would be compared. These commenters worried that
the 25 to 34-year-old demographic used to calculate median earnings for
high school graduates was inappropriately old for comparison to recent
program completers and would put their programs at a disadvantage
because their program completers were younger and earning less.
Discussion: The preamble in the NPRM discussed the motivation for
choosing the 25 to 34-year-old age range. Across all credential levels,
the average age three years after graduation is 30 years old, and the
range from 25th to 75th percentile of program age (the interquartile
range) is 27 to 34 years old. In other words, the typical graduate from
most credential programs is within the comparison EP age range three
years after graduation. Because of this, the Department declines to
consider additional adjustments to the age cohort selected for the EP.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters suggested using years of work
experience, rather than age, as the measure for selecting a comparable
sample of high school graduates for the EP.
Discussion: This approach is generally infeasible since detailed
information on workers' years of experience is not available in the
ACS, which is the source for the EP threshold. Moreover, it is unclear
whether and how a comparable years of experience variable could be
generated for graduates from a given program, especially for those who
started a program of study mid-career.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted that some of their students enroll
through an early college option. As a result, these students tend to be
even younger than a typical cohort with a given credential.
Discussion: Students enrolled through a dual enrollment or early
college program are typically not eligible for title IV, HEA
assistance, and would not be included in an earnings or debt measure
unless they obtained Federal financial aid after their high school
graduation, or as part of a pilot program (i.e., the Department's
Experimental Sites program). The Department reiterates that most
programs have a typical graduate whose age is within the age range used
in the EP threshold.
Changes: None.
Demographics and the Earnings Threshold
Comments: Many commenters noted that program completers who are
disabled, are incarcerated, or choose not to seek employment are
included in the program's earnings data but would not be considered
part of the labor force in the ACS, and therefore are not part of the
EP threshold calculation.
Discussion: Individuals who are not seeking employment, or who are
unable to find employment over a full year due to disability or
incarceration or for other reasons, are not included in the calculation
of the earnings threshold using ACS data. To the extent possible with
administrative data, the Department also excludes those who are unable
to work due to disability, as borrowers who have been identified as
having a total and permanent disability are not included in the D/E or
EP measure earnings. Further, individuals who are incarcerated and are
enrolled in an approved prison education program are also excluded. The
Department believes that those who enroll in a GE program are doing so
with the intent of seeking employment after completing the program.
This assumption is borne out by the fact that a much higher share of
program graduates have positive earnings reported to the IRS than is
true among individuals in a similar age range and with a college
education in the ACS data.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters contended that the median wage for
[[Page 70061]]
high school graduates should sample everyone who meets the age and
credential criteria, including those who no longer participate in the
workforce.
Discussion: The median high school earnings threshold includes
those in the labor force (who have a job or report being available and
looking for a job). As noted in the NPRM, the Department believes that
most graduates of postsecondary programs, particularly those graduating
from career training programs, are likely to seek work or be employed
three years after graduation. A comparison to those who cannot work, or
who have chosen not to work, is not appropriate in this case.
Changes: None.
Reporting--Sec. 668.408
General Support
Comments: A few commenters praised the Department for requiring
reporting for both GE and non-GE programs, noting that doing so will
make more information about educational programs available to the
public regardless of institution type. Another commenter expressed
support for extending financial value transparency reporting
requirements to graduate-level programs, which account for a
substantial portion of student borrowing.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support.
Changes: None.
Benefits and Burdens
Comments: One commenter stated that they expect the long-lasting
and regularly accruing benefits of the new rule, including better
earnings and employment opportunities, lower student loan burden, and
reduced taxpayer costs, will dwarf the reporting costs to institutions.
The commenter also maintained that most of the compliance costs will be
one-time investments to adapt to new reporting requirements, while the
benefits will be persistent.
Discussion: We agree that the costs associated with the
institutional reporting requirements in Sec. 668.408 will be
outweighed by the benefits of the financial value transparency
framework, as well as the benefits of the GE program accountability
framework.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters opined that the proposed reporting
requirements would be costly, time consuming, and burdensome for
institutions, especially HBCUs, community colleges, rural institutions,
and small institutions which operate with budgetary and staffing
limitations. One commenter urged the Department to limit new reporting
requirements to the greatest extent possible. Another commenter
highlighted the need to balance the interests of accountability and
practicality to achieve desired outcomes while minimizing reporting
burden. Some commenters note that, because the proposed transparency
framework applies to all programs, and not just GE programs, it
represents a large increase in reporting burden for institutions.
Discussion: We understand the commenters' concerns about limiting
reporting requirements and recognize the need to appropriately balance
the interests of accountability and practicality. The Department
requires the reporting under the regulations to calculate the D/E rates
and EP measure, as provided in Sec. Sec. 668.403 and 668.404, and to
calculate or determine many of the disclosure items, as provided in
Sec. 668.43(d).
We have carefully reviewed all of the required reporting elements
and have determined that the benefits of the transparency and
accountability frameworks made possible through the reported data
sufficiently justify the associated reporting costs and burden for
institutions. We further note that institutions will benefit from the
reporting because the information will allow them to make targeted
changes to improve their program offerings, benchmark their tuition
pricing against similar programs at other institutions, and better
promote their positive outcomes to potential students.
In terms of staffing limitations, we have not estimated whether or
how many new personnel may be needed to comply with the reporting
requirements. Allocating resources to meet the reporting requirements
is an individual institution's administrative decision. Some
institutions may need to hire new staff, others will redirect existing
staff, and still others will not need to make staffing changes because
they have highly automated reporting systems. We expect these costs to
be modest since, as noted in the RIA, most institutions have experience
with the data reporting for the rule for at least some of their
programs under the 2014 Prior Rule or in responding to recent NCES
surveys.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter opined that it is unclear what mechanism
and process institutions would use to provide the large amount of data
necessary to calculate D/E and EP metrics for nearly all eligible
programs to the Department. Some commenters said that this additional
burden and cost of complying would be complex and require meticulous
coordination, particularly to create the reporting process for the
first year the regulations would go into effect. Several commenters
cautioned that the regulations the Department proposed to improve
institution accountability will have the unintended consequences of
imposing significant reporting burdens on many institutions that
provide strong outcomes for students who readily find good jobs in high
demand fields.
Discussion: While we acknowledge that the overall number of
programs will increase from those reported under the 2014 Prior Rule,
we anticipate the process will largely remain similar. We also expect
to add additional fields as appropriate to existing Departmental
systems including the Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) system
and the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS).
The Department will provide institutions with guidance and training
on the new reporting requirements, provide a format for reporting, and
enable our systems to accept reporting from institutions beginning
several months prior to the July 31, 2024, deadline so that
institutions have sufficient time to submit their data for the first
reporting period. The Department will also continue to look at ways
this information can be routinely updated in the systems to reduce
separate reporting burdens on institutions and will consider additional
ways to simplify our reporting systems, as appropriate.
We are also exempting from these regulations, including the
reporting requirements, institutions offering any group of
substantially similar programs, defined as all programs in the same
four-digit CIP code at an institution with less than 30 completers in
total during the four most recently completed award years. While these
metrics are calculated at the six-digit CIP code level, for the
purposes of qualifying for this exemption, we measure completers among
all such programs at the four-digit CIP code level to avoid incentives
for institutions to create new, smaller programs that are substantially
similar in order to avoid being covered by these rules. Although this
change will result in the loss of some beneficial information from
these institutions independent of the D/E rates and earnings premium
metrics, such as net pricing at specific credential levels, we believe
this loss is acceptable when balanced against the alleviated reporting
burden for many institutions. Approximately 700 institutions will
benefit from this exemption, including about 85 percent of
participating foreign
[[Page 70062]]
institutions and a diverse group of other institutions. This reduction
of burden is achieved without diminishing the impact of the D/E rates
or EP measure, as institutions exempted from the reporting requirement
would not have sufficient numbers of completers to calculate those
measures for any program. Moreover, the overall impact to students is
minimal because institutions affected by this exemption constitute less
than one percent of total title IV, HEA student enrollment and less
than one percent of total title IV, HEA disbursement volume.
Changes: We have modified the exemptions under Sec. Sec.
668.401(b) and 668.601(b) to exempt institutions that do not have any
group of programs that share the same four-digit CIP code with 30 or
more completers in total over the most recent four award years from
these regulations, as described above.
Comments: A few commenters claimed that new reporting requirements
would overly tax institutional financial aid and information technology
staff who are already tasked with implementing and adapting to
significant changes to Federal Student Aid processes and systems for
the upcoming 2024-25 award year. One commenter noted that the 2014
Prior Rule presented technical difficulties in report coding for
students enrolled concurrently in multiple GE programs and anticipated
these challenges to be more significant with the potential for students
to now simultaneously enroll in GE and non-GE programs. One commenter
indicated that the proposed rule did not clearly explain how to handle
reporting requirements for a student enrolled simultaneously in a GE
program and an eligible non-GE degree program, recommending that the
eligible non-GE degree program should take precedence for reporting
because funds received by the student would be primarily used for that
program.
A few commenters recommended that the data reported under Sec.
668.408 be open, interoperable, and available for integration into
State longitudinal data systems. One commenter noted that additional
investments in State data systems will be necessary to ensure accurate
reporting on the proposed metrics and requested that the Department
encourage States to invest more resources into linked and integrated
longitudinal data systems to reduce reporting burdens on institutions.
Discussion: We acknowledge that the reporting requirements in Sec.
668.408 may, in some cases, increase the demands on an institution's
information technology staff and resources. We also recognize that
institutions must adjust for technical and system changes under the
Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) Simplification Act and
Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education
(FUTURE) Act, effective for the 2024-2025 award year. The Department
has provided, and will continue to provide, training and technical
resources in advance of the implementation of the FAFSA Simplification
Act and Future Act provisions.
We will also provide training and technical resources prior to the
implementation of the Financial Value Transparency and Gainful
Employment frameworks set forth in this final rule, which will address
the handling of situations involving students simultaneously enrolled
in multiple GE programs. We appreciate the request for a clearer
explanation of how institutions should handle reporting requirements
for a student enrolled simultaneously in a GE program and an eligible
non-GE degree program. We will provide further clarification in sub-
regulatory guidance and training in advance of the effective date of
the reporting requirements under this final rule, and we will consider
the request that eligible non-GE degree programs take precedence.
The Department agrees that data published under these provisions
should be as transparent and interoperable as possible, while
recognizing the necessary constraints to protect student privacy. We
will continue to evaluate ways to make the published data as valuable
as possible to researchers and State policymakers. We also agree that
wise investments in State data systems may increase the value of data
reporting requirements, and we encourage States to support linked and
integrated longitudinal data systems as appropriate.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted that the proposed reporting
requirements appear unnecessarily burdensome for institutions that do
not participate in the Direct Loan program and whose graduates are
therefore unburdened with student debt.
Discussion: The Department disagrees with the assertion that the
reporting requirements are unnecessarily burdensome for institutions
that do not participate in the Direct Loan program. A program should
not be exempt from the reporting requirements because it has a low
borrowing rate or a low institutional cohort default rate. The
information that institutions must report is necessary to calculate not
only the D/E rates, but also to calculate the EP measure and to
determine many of the disclosure items as provided in Sec. 668.43(d).
Exempting some institutions from the reporting requirements, whether
partially or fully, would undermine the effectiveness of both the
accountability and transparency frameworks of the regulations because
the Department would be unable to assess the outcomes of those
programs. In addition, students would not be able to access relevant
information about these programs and compare outcomes across
institutions. We also note that D/E rates calculations would likely be
favorable for institutions with low rates of borrowing.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted that reporting requirements
constitute administrative work that does not serve students in a direct
manner. Several commenters noted that the costs of the new reporting
requirements will inevitably transfer to the student.
Discussion: We do not agree that the efforts institutions will need
to invest in to comply with reporting requirements do not directly
serve students. The financial value transparency metrics calculated
using the reported data will provide valuable information directly to
current and prospective students, who can use that information to
better inform critical enrollment and borrowing decisions. Moreover,
the GE accountability framework will directly protect students,
prospective students, families, and the public by ending title IV, HEA
participation for the poorest performing programs.
While we acknowledge that institutions may pass administrative
costs on to students through increased tuition and fees, we note that
the transparency framework will increase the availability of cost
information available to students and prospective students in comparing
programs and institutions, and we expect that market forces will
mitigate this practice to some extent through increased pricing
competitiveness among institutions.
Changes: None.
Specificity
Comments: One commenter argued that proposed Sec. 668.408(a)(4),
which would allow the Department to specify additional reporting
requirements in a future Federal Register notice, is vague and overly
broad to such an extent as to provide us with unlimited discretion in
imposing additional reporting requirements. This commenter contended
that proposed Sec. 668.408(a)(4) did not provide sufficient notice
concerning the types of information that institutions may be required
to report or
[[Page 70063]]
disclose. The commenter requested that the Department either provide
further information about the types of reporting that may be required
under Sec. 668.408(a)(4) or remove this provision. Another commenter
expressed concern that the public would lack a mechanism to engage the
Department prior to the addition of any further reporting requirements
through a future Federal Register notice.
Discussion: We believe that the Department needs the discretion to
reasonably modify future reporting requirements to adapt to unforeseen
changes in the postsecondary ecosystem, including to eliminate
unnecessary or duplicative reporting requirements. Examples of such
potential developments that might be relevant to students could include
more reliable and consistent job placement rates, new types of
financial assistance available to students in addition to the title IV,
HEA programs, or other such information. Retaining the flexibility to
efficiently modify future reporting requirements is necessary to
support our goal to provide the students, families, and the public with
relevant information to make better informed postsecondary choices.
We note that any future modifications to reporting requirements in
the Federal Register would be published well in advance of the
effective date of such modified requirements and would provide a
contact for questions about the new requirements.
Changes: None.
Timeframe
Comments: One commenter expressed support for the proposed
reporting timeline and urged the Department to aggressively prioritize
the development of data systems and other related tools. This commenter
further noted that such reporting requirements are not new because
institutions with GE programs have previously implemented many aspects
of the proposed reporting requirements, and we already require all
institutions to report many of the proposed data points.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support, and we affirm
our intent to prioritize the development of the systems and tools
necessary to facilitate the reporting requirements. We agree that the
reporting requirements set forth in this final rule are not without
precedent, and many of them should already be familiar to institutions.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters noted that the proposed reporting
provisions would require institutions to report multiple years of
initial data with only a 30-day window from the effective date of this
final rule and urged the Department to allow institutions adequate time
to prepare and report any required information, particularly in light
of other high-priority work competing for institutions' limited
resources. One example provided was implementing sweeping FAFSA
simplification changes for the 2024-2025 award year.
A few commenters remarked that efforts necessary to comply with the
initial reporting deadline for the 2014 Prior Rule were harmful to
other institutional operations that had to be postponed. These
commenters suggested revising the initial reporting deadline from July
31, 2024, to October 1, 2024, which would be consistent with the
reporting deadline for all subsequent years. Several commenters more
broadly suggested that the initial reporting deadline should be a
minimum of 90 to 120 days after the later of the effective date of the
final rule or the date that the Department makes available the full
reporting format and process. These commenters recommended further
extensions if we modify or supplement reporting guidance after
releasing it.
Discussion: We believe that the July 31, 2024, deadline for initial
reporting is reasonable and appropriate. While this reporting period
ends one month from the effective date of the final rule, institutions
will have over nine months from the publication of the final rule to
plan and prepare for the required reporting. With regard to alleged
harm to other institutional operations caused by efforts to meet the
initial reporting deadline, we note that under the existing
administrative capability provisions at Sec. 668.16(b)(2),
institutions are required to maintain an adequate number of qualified
staff to administer the title IV, HEA programs, and part of an
institution's responsibility is to comply with reporting requirements.
The Department will provide training in advance to institutions on the
new reporting requirements, provide a format for reporting, and enable
the Department's relevant systems to accept optional early reporting
from institutions beginning several months prior to the July 31, 2024,
deadline. We are not persuaded by commenters' arguments that the
implementation of changes for the 2024-25 award year under the FAFSA
Simplification Act and FUTURE Act would necessitate extending the
initial reporting timeline because most institutions will have already
made the necessary operational and procedural adjustments much sooner
than July 2024. We note that the new FAFSA system and associated
processes will become operational and available to institutions in
December 2023.
We respectfully decline the commenters' suggestions to extend the
initial reporting period through October 1, 2024, or for an initial
reporting deadline 90 to 120 days after the effective date of this
final rule. As discussed above, we maintain that institutions have
sufficient advance notice between the publication of this final rule
and the initial reporting deadline of July 31, 2024, to comply,
especially given the anticipated option for advanced reporting. If the
Department significantly modifies or supplements the reporting
requirements after the effective date of this rule, we will consider
further extending the deadline.
Changes: None.
Reporting Period
Comments: Many commenters noted that the requirement to report
certain information for students who enrolled in the previous seven
award years (and, in some cases, up to nine) would consume significant
institutional time and resources. These commenters explained that this
would especially burden under-resourced institutions. One such
commenter postulated that requiring institutions to report data from
prior award years could lead to a widespread exodus of institutional
financial aid staff. Some commenters noted that reporting for more than
three to five past award years would exceed existing record retention
requirements and, as a result, this historical data requested by the
Department would be incomplete. Several commenters urged the Department
not to impose sanctions for metrics calculated using data from past
years that exceed applicable record retention requirements.
Discussion: We believe that the initial reporting requirements are
reasonable for most institutions and programs, including under-
resourced institutions. Nearly all proprietary institutions are already
familiar with the previous reporting requirements under the 2014 Prior
Rule, and significant portions of public and private nonprofit
institutions were also required to report for one or more GE
certificate programs under those previous requirements. We remain
skeptical that the initial reporting requirements would lead to
significant departures of institutional financial aid professionals, in
part because at most institutions, reporting responsibilities falls
primarily on specific financial aid staff, and in many cases reporting
is handled through automated processing systems or dedicated reporting
staff
[[Page 70064]]
outside the financial aid office. Furthermore, most of the records
institutions must report fall within the record retention timeframe
required under Sec. 668.24(e), even if the data are maintained in
multiple systems or formats. In addition, institutions may have a
policy of retaining student records for longer periods; or a State or
accrediting agencies or both may require them to do so.
Nonetheless, we are sensitive to institutions' concerns about the
initial reporting burden. To address these concerns, we have extended
the transitional reporting period option initially proposed for non-GE
programs to GE programs as well, as further discussed under
``Transitional Period'' below.
Changes: We have revised the transitional reporting option at Sec.
668.408(c)(1) to now apply both to GE and non-GE programs.
Comments: A few commenters noted that the Department would better
promote a cooperative and supportive relationship with institutions by
including an opportunity for institutions to explain any failure to
comply with reporting requirements. Another commenter suggested the
Department further explain the provision at proposed Sec.
668.408(b)(2) that would allow an institution to provide an explanation
acceptable to the Secretary of why the institution failed to comply
with any of the reporting requirements. A few commenters argued that
the Department should hold an institution harmless for failing to
report data it is no longer required to retain. These commenters
suggested that, if a material number of institutions fall into this
category, the Department should not calculate D/E or EP metrics for the
impacted years.
Discussion: We concur with commenters that a process is necessary
for institutions to explain to the Department any failure to comply
with reporting requirements. This process would be appropriate, for
example, in instances in which a disaster, emergency, or attack results
in the loss or destruction of data the institution must otherwise
report. We expect to provide additional information regarding the
manner and circumstances in which institutions could employ this
provision in future sub-regulatory guidance and training. In such
instances where institutions are unable to comply with these reporting
requirements because the institution was not required to retain the
records, Sec. 668.408(b)(2) will allow an institution to explain its
inability to comply with part of the reporting requirements. The
Department will review an institution's explanation and may provide
relief from the consequences of the rule if sufficiently supported by
the circumstances and evidence provided. We believe this approach
provides the needed flexibility to accommodate limited circumstances in
which institutions may be unable to report, including exceptional
circumstances that are difficult or impossible to foresee at this time,
without unduly delaying or compromising the transparency and
accountability benefits of the rule.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted that the Department and other
regulators encourage institutions to limit the volume of data they
store, further noting that our data destruction guidance encourages
institutions to minimize the amount of data they retain by destroying
them when no longer needed, identifying this as a best practice for
protecting individuals' privacy and for limiting the potential impact
of a data breach.
Discussion: We do not believe the proposed reporting requirements
inherently conflict with the record retention requirements at Sec.
668.24(e), nor with the Department's guidance pertaining to the
destruction of records. The record retention provisions at Sec.
668.24(e) were never intended to shield institutions from complying
with the Department's legitimate program oversight activities. For
example, Sec. 668.24(e)(3) requires institutions to retain applicable
program records relating to costs questioned in an audit or program
review, indefinitely and beyond the prescribed three-year retention
period, until resolution of such audit or program review. In addition,
many institutions retain student records for longer periods than
required by Sec. 668.24(e), either as a matter of institutional policy
or as a result of State or accrediting agency requirements. As noted in
the Department's data destruction guidance cited by the commenter, some
data may need to be preserved indefinitely, while other student
information will need to be preserved for a prescribed period of time
to comply with legal or policy requirements.\155\ The reporting
requirements established under this rule constitute such a requirement
that necessitates the retention of relevant records, potentially beyond
the three-year periods referenced in Sec. 668.24(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ studentprivacy.ed.gov/sites/default/files/resource_document/file/Best%20Practices%20for%20Data%20Destruction%20%282019-3-26%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed concern that the proposed
reporting period may inadvertently identify medical programs as low
financial value, lessening their ability to recruit students and
exacerbating the Nation's physician workforce shortage, because a
program's current metrics would be calculated based on the outcomes of
students from nearly a decade ago, long before the institution would
know what metrics the Department would eventually consider to
constitute good financial value in 2024.
Discussion: Our Regulatory Impact Analysis in the NPRM showed that
certain undergraduate health professions programs, particularly
certificate programs in medical assisting and medical administration,
would fail the GE accountability measures at higher-than-average
rates.\156\ We do not, however, expect that programs leading to a
terminal medical degree will fail the D/E rates or EP measure in
significant numbers. We further note that the cohort period defined at
Sec. 668.2 for doctoral medical and dental programs that require
students to complete a residency provides additional time, relative to
other programs, before graduate earnings will be measured. This
provides additional reassurance that reported earnings will accurately
and positively reflect physicians' and dentists' ability to exceed the
high school earnings threshold and capacity to repay their educational
debts. In summary, we do not expect that the regulations will deter
aspiring physicians and dentists from pursuing their chosen field, and
we do not believe that they will substantially negatively impact the
Nation's physician workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ See, for example, 88 FR 32427.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter posited that a more practical and less
burdensome reporting process might focus on forward-looking reporting
rather than data from past award years, arguing that such an approach
would better accommodate institutions' need for time to adapt to new
reporting requirements, and that current and future data would be more
relevant for evaluating program effectiveness.
Discussion: Although we appreciate the commenter's suggestion, as
discussed in the ``Background'' section of the NPRM,\157\ we perceive
that the need for these financial value transparency measures and the
GE accountability framework is too urgent to justify further delay in
calculating and publishing the D/E rates and EP
[[Page 70065]]
measures. The Department believes that the regulations provide
institutions sufficient time and flexibility to adapt to any new
reporting requirements, and that historical data can provide helpful
insight into an established program's performance over time. Students,
families, and the public deserve to benefit from improved transparency
and accountability as swiftly as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ 88 FR 32300, 32306 (May 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters noted that some of the required data
would be associated with years in which institutions and students were
impacted by the COVID-19 national emergency and that this pre-pandemic
environment may no longer exist for many students.
One commenter suggested that the Department postpone any sanctions
where data prior to 2022 is used in determination of eligibility, due
to the broad impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on workers, graduates, and
the postsecondary education industry. A commenter suggested extending
the initial reporting requirements by one to two years to better
account for the economic effects of the pandemic.
Discussion: The Department recognizes that data from some years
included in the initial reporting period were impacted by the COVID-19
pandemic and national emergency. However, postponing calculating the
outcome measures until such time as no earnings data through 2022 is
included in D/E rate or EP calculations would delay the benefits of the
rule until at least the 2026-2027 award year. Extending the initial
reporting timeframe by one to two years would produce a similar result.
As discussed above, we believe the need for the transparency and
accountability measures is too urgent to postpone any of their primary
components to such an extent, and to do so would abdicate our
responsibility to provide effective program oversight.
Additionally, we are unconvinced by arguments that data from prior
to 2020 represent a pre-pandemic reality that no longer exists. Recent
data show that overall labor force participation is back to its pre-
pandemic forecasted level, and the prime-age (25-54) labor force
participation rate is now slightly above pre-pandemic levels.\158\ We
consider and further discuss comments pertaining to the COVID-19
pandemic below under ``Other Accommodations and Special
Circumstances.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2023/04/17/the-labor-supply-rebound-from-the-pandemic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Transitional Period
Comments: A few commenters expressed appreciation for the
transitional reporting offered at proposed Sec. 668.408(c)(1) for
eligible non-GE programs.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters requested that we offer GE programs
the same reporting options as non-GE programs in the interests of
fairness, reduced burden, and consistent comparison among all types of
programs. One commenter opined that the proposed transitional reporting
period option would unfairly hold GE program to a more difficult
standard. This commenter argued that the reporting burden offered by
the Department as reasoning for the transitional reporting period for
non-GE programs holds equally true for GE programs.
A few commenters requested further explanation of the Department's
reasoning for the difference in initial reporting requirements.
A few commenters recommended extending the transitional reporting
period option to GE programs that do not offer loans. These commenters
noted that many GE programs--particularly at community colleges--do not
offer loans, yet we would require them to report seven years of
institutional data to facilitate D/E rates that we would ultimately not
calculate for those programs.
Discussion: Our reasoning for offering the transitional reporting
and rates option only to non-GE programs was to lighten the initial
reporting burden for institutions offering only non-GE programs which
they were not required to report under the 2014 Prior Rule. Given that
the financial value transparency metrics do not impact program
eligibility for non-GE programs, we believed that alleviating some of
the initial reporting burden would justify a temporary sacrifice in the
quality and comparability of the D/E data reported during the
transition period.
With regard to concerns about reporting requirements for
institutions and programs that do not offer loans, we note that the
Department would nonetheless calculate the EP measure for such
institutions and programs.
While we maintain that the initial reporting requirements are
reasonable, in the interests of more equitable treatment of programs
and institutions, and to facilitate smoother and less burdensome
implementation for institutions, we extend the transitional reporting
option to all programs in this final rule. We believe that this change
will alleviate many commenters' concerns about fairness, cost, and
burden, and that these considerations justify the brief period for
which the D/E rate data will be impacted.
Changes: We have revised the transitional reporting option at Sec.
668.408(c)(1) to now apply both to GE and non-GE programs.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the Department use only the
transitional reporting and calculation methodology, abandoning any
requirements to report for periods older than the preceding two award
years.
Discussion: The Department considered permanently adopting the
transition period's structure of calculating D/E rates for all
programs. While this approach would result in a mismatch between
borrowing and earnings cohorts, it would use the most recently
available debt and earnings data to determine program D/E outcomes.
Such an approach would also increase institutions' ability to affect
their students' borrowing levels in response to adverse D/E outcomes
before losing eligibility. While this approach could make the D/E rates
more forward-looking, we decided against it as a permanent measure
because the earnings and debt measures would reflect the outcomes of
different students. We believe the D/E rates will be more meaningful
and informative to most students if completers' earnings outcomes are
matched with the debt incurred by the same group of borrowers.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter posited that because the 2014 Prior Rule
used a different methodology to calculate D/E rates, such as not
considering scholarships and grants in capping loan debt, it would be
inappropriate to use those earlier data to calculate D/E rates under
this final rule.
Discussion: In writing the NPRM, we did not envision using
previously reported data to calculate D/E rates. Instead, we will
require reporting of new information for past completer cohorts to
construct the rates as set forth in the final rule. Since we have
extended the transitional reporting option to both GE and non-GE
programs, institutions will have the choice to report these additional
data elements, such as private loans, institutional scholarships, and
grants, starting with the most recent completer cohorts, or for the
historical cohorts matching those for whom we measure median earnings.
Changes: None.
[[Page 70066]]
Redundancy
Comments: Several commenters urged the Department to avoid imposing
duplicative reporting requirements, asserting that institutions already
report some data elements at proposed Sec. 668.408 (such as CIP code,
credential level, program name, program length, enrollment status,
attendance and graduation dates, disbursement amounts, and income once
IRS Direct Data Exchange is in place) to other Department-maintained
websites such as NSLDS, COD, and Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System (IPEDS). These commenters further suggested that the
Department should share data it controls between systems and processes
to relieve administrative burden for institutions. A few commenters
further noted that duplicative reporting requirements increase
institutional burden yet provide little added value to students because
much of the information is already available.
Several commenters noted that institutions are already required to
publish graduation and placement rates through accrediting agency
requirements. A few commenters opined that it is difficult for career
training programs to comply with overlapping transparency requirements.
These commenters suggested that the Department thoroughly review the
annual requirements for reporting, accountability, and transparency.
Discussion: Although there is some overlap with the Department's
current enrollment reporting and disbursement reporting requirements,
those data do not include several key elements required for the
calculation of D/E rates, such as debt students owe directly to the
institution, other private education loan debt, tuition and fees, and
allowance for books and supplies. As discussed under ``Burden'' above,
we believe that the transparency and accountability benefits outweigh
any burden of reporting. We further note that various factors, such as
the sophistication of an institution's systems, the size of the
institution and the number of programs that it has, whether or not the
institution's operations are centralized, and whether the institution
can update existing systems to meet the reporting requirements will
affect the level of burden for any particular institution.
With regard to accrediting agency requirements concerning the
publishing of graduation and placement rates, we remind commenters that
we do not include placement rates among the reporting requirements in
this rule. Accrediting agency requirements and methodologies vary, and
inconsistencies in how institutions currently calculate job placement
rates limit their usefulness in comparing institutions and programs.
As previously noted, the Department has carefully considered the
reporting requirements that support the transparency and accountability
frameworks of this rule. We believe them to provide the most
appropriate and helpful information for students, families, and the
public at this time balanced with the needs of institutions. The
Department will nonetheless review the data institutions currently
report and will work to mitigate duplicative reporting to the greatest
extent possible.
Changes: None.
Data Elements
Comments: One commenter suggested that, in addition to the data
elements identified in the NPRM, the Department require institutions to
report the distance education status of their students (i.e., entirely
online, entirely on-campus, or hybrid). This commenter reasoned that
doing so would enable useful insights about the outcomes of online and
hybrid programs and would allow a more targeted comparison of earnings
between completers and high school graduates for the EP measure.
Discussion: We appreciate this suggestion, and we concur that more
granular data on students' distance education status could yield useful
and better targeted program information. We do not currently gather
this information on the individual student level. We considered
strategies for obtaining such information, such as creating and
assigning virtual OPEID numbers to represent an institution's online-
only programs. Upon further consideration, we believe that such changes
could have wider ranging impacts and would be best addressed by
including them in a broader discussion of distance education issues in
our upcoming negotiated rulemaking.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ See 88 FR 17777 (Mar. 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested removing reporting requirements
for non-Federal sources of aid, particularly private loans and
institutional grants, noting that institutions are only aware of
private loans if lenders or students disclose them. The commenter
further noted that gathering and reporting private loan information is
burdensome for institutions.
One commenter proposed removing the requirement to report
institutional debt. This commenter argued that the institutions collect
these debts directly from the student, they are not tied to Federal
investment, and they typically result from student withdrawals. As an
alternative, this commenter suggested using return of title IV, HEA
funds (R2T4) record submission to estimate the average institutional
debt.
Another commenter noted that reporting debt due at time of exit
from the program presents unique programming challenges that would
require manually fixing a significant portion of records, suggesting
that institutions be exempted from reporting this data element if the
median value is less than $200.
Discussion: The reporting of non-Federal sources of aid--including
institutional grants and scholarships; State, Tribal, or private
funding; and the private education loans of which the institution is
aware (including those made by an institution) is necessary to
accurately determine educational debt for purposes of calculating and
providing D/E rates. Omitting private education loan debt, including
institutional loan debt, would harmfully diminish the usefulness of the
information by providing an inaccurate estimate of the true costs
typically incurred by students to enroll in a program. Regardless of
any associated burden, reporting non-Federal grants and scholarships
ultimately benefits institutions because, as provided under Sec.
668.403, in determining a program's median loan amount each student's
loan debt would be capped at the lesser of the loan debt or the program
costs, less any institutional grants and scholarships. Some
institutions with higher overall tuition costs offer significant
institutional financial assistance or discounts that reduce the net
cost for students to enroll in their programs. Requiring institutions
to report institutional grants and scholarships allows the Department
to take such financial assistance into consideration when measuring
debt outcomes, will encourage institutions to provide financial
assistance to students, and will ultimately result in a fairer metric
and more consistent comparisons of the actual debt burdens associated
with different programs.
While we appreciate the suggestion to use R2T4 reporting as a proxy
to estimate institutional debt, doing so would overlook other sources
of institutional debt such as gap loans, emergency loans, and payment
plans. We believe it is necessary to capture all such sources of
educational debt to calculate and provide D/E rates that are
sufficiently accurate.
[[Page 70067]]
We also appreciate the commenter's suggestion that institutions be
exempted from reporting institutional debt if the median value is less
than $200. While we recognize the technical concerns, we believe that
this burden is outweighed by the benefit of accurate debt information.
While $200 may appear to be a reasonable de minimus amount of debt for
institutions not to report, it is unclear what data would support this
threshold or some other particular amount. Additionally, we do not
believe a threshold to be appropriate, because to many current and
prospective students even a modest amount could make the difference in
covering critical indirect costs such as housing, food, or
transportation, or going forward with those needs unfulfilled.
Changes: None.
Comments: Regarding the requirement to report licensure information
(including whether the program meets licensure requirements for all
States in the institution's area and the number of graduates attempting
and completing licensure exams), one commenter noted that licensure
requirements and oversight bodies vary by State and suggested that the
Department investigate other, more accurate sources of licensing,
certification, and workforce data, such as BLS Occupation and Wage
Statistics or Employment Projections data.
One commenter opined that reporting State-specific licensure
preparation requirements exceeds the limits of what institutions can
reasonably accomplish.
One commenter noted that the Florida Education & Training Place
Information Program does not disaggregate wage and employment data for
private nonprofit institutions, further noting that student and
employer surveys are unreliable and suffer from poor response rates.
One commenter posited that reporting program costs including books,
supplies, and equipment would be burdensome for community colleges
because those elements can frequently change. This commenter instead
suggested that we require institutions to report a good-faith estimate.
Discussion: We are aware that licensure oversight bodies,
processes, and requirements vary from State to State, and we
acknowledge that institutions must commit sufficient time and resources
to adequately navigate those requirements. Notwithstanding the
complexities of the State licensing landscape, we remind commenters
that accurate information about whether a program meets State licensure
requirements is of paramount importance to students. Reporting whether
a program meets relevant licensure requirements for the States in the
institution's metropolitan statistical area or whether it prepares
students to sit for a licensure examination in a particular occupation
allows the Department to provide current and prospective students with
invaluable information about the career outcomes for graduates of the
program and supports informed enrollment decisions. In recent years,
some institutions have misrepresented the career and employment
outcomes of programs, including the eligibility of program graduates to
sit for licensure examinations, resulting in borrower defense claims.
Reporting information about a program's licensure outcomes--such as
share of recent program graduates that sit for and pass licensure exams
will help to reduce the number of future borrower defense claims that
are approved.
With regard to the request to consider BLS data, we do not believe
that BLS data reflect program-level student outcomes. The average or
percentile earnings gathered and reported by BLS for an occupation
include all earnings gathered by BLS in its survey, but do not show the
specific earnings of the individuals who completed a particular program
at an institution and, therefore, would not provide useful information
about whether the program prepared students for gainful employment in
that occupation.
With regard to concern about the disaggregated Florida earnings
data, we note that institutions do not report wage and employment data
under this rule. A Federal agency with earnings data provides aggregate
earnings data directly to the Department.
We believe that institutions are capable of collecting and
reporting State licensure information, and the importance of State
licensure information to students justifies any burden to institutions
in collecting and reporting such data. We do not believe that allowing
institutions to report a good-faith estimate would result in accurate
and comparable information, in part because whether an estimate was
provided in good faith would be subjective and difficult if not
impossible to define.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the Department require
institutions to report additional data elements, including (1) whether
a program graduates commonly are subject to a postgraduate training
period, similar to a medical or dental program internship or residency,
that could impact their early career postgraduate earnings; (2) the
amount of title IV, HEA funds obtained by the student for housing; and
(3) whether graduates obtain employment that is unpaid or subsidized
through a government program with housing, meal, or other non-income
benefits.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestions. With regard
to postgraduate training requirements that could impact immediate
postgraduate earnings, we include this information among requirements
that institutions must report to the Department, and include it on the
list of elements the Secretary may include on the program information
website described in Sec. 668.43. Our analysis, however, revealed that
those particular disciplines demonstrate significantly more meaningful
gains with an extended earnings measurement period than any other
program categories. As further explained in our earlier discussion
under ``Measurement of Earnings,'' we determined that reporting
postgraduate internship or residency requirements is properly targeted
to medical and dental programs, as initially proposed.
We believe it is more appropriate for institutions to report the
annual allowance for housing, rather than the amount of title IV, HEA
funds a student obtained specifically for housing. Not all institutions
offer institutional housing, nor do all students partake of
institutional housings at institutions that offer it. It would be both
burdensome and unreliable to require institutions to divine which
specific educationally related indirect costs each student covers using
title IV, HEA credit balances.
While we recognize that some students obtain employment that is
unpaid or subsidized through a government program with housing, meal,
or other non-income benefits, we believe this would apply to only a
small portion of postsecondary graduates. While unpaid or subsidized
programs may provide meaningful personal fulfilment and valuable
societal benefits, financial concerns weigh more heavily in most
students' decision to go to college, with the top three reasons
identified being ``to improve my employment opportunities,'' ``to make
more money,'' and ``to get a good job.'' \160\ We believe it would be
unnecessarily burdensome to require institutions to report this
supplementary information, and that such burden
[[Page 70068]]
would outweigh the benefits to students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ Rachel Fishman (2015). 2015 College Decisions Survey: Part
I Deciding To Go To College. New America (static.newamerica.org/attachments/3248-deciding-to-go-to-college/CollegeDecisions_PartI.148dcab30a0e414ea2a52f0d8fb04e7b.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Alternative Approaches
Comments: One commenter urged the Department to consider
alternative approaches to increase transparency without increasing
costs to institutions.
Discussion: The Department is always interested in exploring new
approaches to deliver improved outcomes while minimizing costs and
burden. Nonetheless, among the options available at this time, we
believe the approach set forth in this rule will provide the optimal
achievable balance between costs and benefits. Further discussion is
provided under ``Discussion of Costs and Benefits'' below.
Changes: None.
Other
Comments: One commenter opined that the Department did not discuss
the collection of such a large amount of data and information during
negotiated rulemaking sessions.
Discussion: The Department disagrees with the commenter's assertion
that the reporting requirements were not discussed during negotiated
rulemaking. Preliminary language in the GE issue papers for weeks two
\161\ and three \162\ of negotiations provided potential reporting
requirements for consideration and discussion by the committee. Because
the committee did not reach consensus, the Department is neither
limited nor bound to the specific regulatory language discussed in
negotiated rulemaking. Moreover, the reporting requirements were
published in the NPRM, and the Department provided the public--
including the negotiators--a reasonable opportunity to provide feedback
to the Department through the public comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2021/3ge.pdf.
\162\ www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2021/isspap3gainempl.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Program Information Website--Sec. 668.43
General Support
Comments: Several commenters voiced general support for the
proposed program information website and requirements, noting that
programmatic information should be more publicly available to support
students in making informed decisions.
The commenters further noted that this information may help to
prevent harm to vulnerable populations. Additionally, these commenters
suggested that this information can encourage schools to operate more
efficiently and devote more resources to providing career services and
job development resources to students. The commenters further
highlighted that the program information website provides other State,
local, and Federal stakeholders with information to monitor and guide
the improvement of student outcomes.
One commenter noted that borrowers with defaulted loans interviewed
in focus groups expressed a desire for more information about loans and
college outcomes.
One commenter observed that financial value transparency
information relating to cost of attendance, majors of interest,
residence, and post-graduation earnings can impact a student's
enrollment decisions.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for their support.
Changes: None.
General Opposition
Comments: One commenter opined that institutions, not the
government, are best positioned to advise and inform students and
families.
Discussion: We remind the commenter that nothing in this rule
prohibits an institution from providing information to students and
families. We of course welcome and encourage institutions to provide
any reliable supplemental and contextual information to students that
they may wish to provide in addition to the information we make
available through the program information website. We believe, however,
that both institutions and the government have important roles to play
in this regard. We believe that relying solely on institutional efforts
and resources would result in inconsistent information that would make
comparing different institutions and programs more challenging and
confusing for students, would increase the risk of misrepresentation
and abuse leading to costly borrower defense claims, and would unfairly
disadvantage smaller and under-resourced institutions without large
marketing departments and budgets. The financial value transparency
information we have chosen provides more consistent information to
students and the public, more equitable treatment of institutions and
programs, and better serves the needs of the public and the mission of
the Department.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters questioned how many students would
carefully view the proposed program information website, opining that
excessive consumer information risks obscuring the information and
overwhelming students.
Another commenter cited the Department's Direct Loan entrance
counseling as an example of consumer information transparency where the
organization, length, and language impede students' interest and
understanding of the information, leading students to only skim the
material to meet the requirement to enable disbursement of pending loan
funds.
Discussion: The purpose of Direct Loan entrance counseling and the
financial value transparency information materially differ. Entrance
counseling is intended to make borrowers aware of their rights,
responsibilities, and resources available to them. The financial value
transparency information provides information about the debt and
earnings outcomes of a program intended to aid students in making
informed enrollment decisions. We believe that all of the required
information would be useful and relevant to prospective and enrolled
students. We, however, concur with the commenters that it is critical
to provide prospective and enrolled students with the information that
they would find most helpful in evaluating a program when determining
whether to enroll or to continue in the program. We note that Sec.
668.43(d)(1) allows us to use consumer testing to identify additional
information that will be most meaningful for students, and Sec.
668.408(a)(4) permits us to modify future reporting requirements as
necessary to support improved transparency.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter opined that the requirements in proposed
Sec. 668.43(d)(1)(ii), (v), (vi), (vii), (x), and (xi) to report a
program's completion and withdrawal rates, D/E rates, EP measure, loan
repayment rates, median loan debt, and median earnings would violate
institutions' constitutional rights under the First Amendment. The
commenter argued it is not clear that the information required to be
reported would be purely factual and uncontroversial because
institutions would not have an opportunity to review, challenge, or
appeal the Department's data or calculations before the information is
made public. This commenter further posited that the proposed
requirements do not advance a significant government interest in
preventing deceptive advertising and providing consumer information
about program benefits and outcomes because
[[Page 70069]]
the information is made public before institutions have an opportunity
to review, challenge, or appeal the information. As a result, according
to the commenter, the Department could inadvertently provide deceptive
or confusing information. This commenter additionally noted that, in
response to similar objections under the 2014 Prior Rule, the
Department cited that the disclosures in that rule were purely factual
and uncontroversial in part because institutions were given an
opportunity to challenge the data and calculations, which is absent in
the proposed regulations.
Discussion: The Department disagrees that the requirements related
to the program information website violate institutions' First
Amendment rights to the freedom of speech. As an initial matter, the
rules do not require institutions to disclose the information in Sec.
668.43(d)(1) to students because that information will be posted on the
Department's website, not the website of an institution or program. In
order to clarify the nature of the reporting requirements in Sec.
668.43(d), we are replacing references to the Department's
``disclosure'' website with ``program information'' website and making
related conforming changes to better clarify the distinction between
this website hosted by the Department and the institutional disclosure
requirements in Sec. 668.43(a) through (c). Section 668.43(d)(1) does
not require institutions to make disclosures to students, as the 2014
Prior Rule did, and we are changing the terminology to avoid any
confusion about the nature of these requirements.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ Section 668.43(d)(2) through (4) (regarding links to the
Department's program information website) is addressed below in this
section, as well as in a separate discussion that covers public
comments on that section that are not directly related to the
freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the rules aim to protect the use of taxpayer funds
and facilitate program innovation, not only to enhance informed student
choice and public information more generally. To the extent some
commenters suggest the rules will require institutions or programs to
include such information on their own websites, they are incorrect. To
clarify, the Department will collect information and data from
institutions and other sources, conduct certain calculations in
accordance with the rules, and post results on the Department's
website. The material posted on the Department's website will be the
government's speech, and clearly so, not any institution or program's
speech,\164\ and will impose no burden on the content choices of
institutions. To the extent that commenters suggest that private
parties have free speech rights to control the content of an agency
website under these circumstances, or that institutions have a free
speech right to regulate communications between the Department and
students receiving Federal aid, the Department disagrees with the
conclusion. That view of the First Amendment would implicate a broad
range of government communications that rely in part on information
collections from private parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ See Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans,
Inc., 576 U.S. 200, 207 (2015) (``When government speaks, it is not
barred by the Free Speech Clause from determining the content of
what it says.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the information available on the Department's program
information website will consist of accurate factual, uncontroversial
information regarding an institution's programs. Courts have upheld the
provision of factual information against First Amendment challenge even
when, unlike the situation here, the government has required
disclosures to be made by private parties.\165\ Indeed, a district
court rejected First Amendment and other challenges to a disclosure
provision in the 2014 Prior Rule, which required institutions to make
disclosures directly to prospective and enrolled students.\166\ We
point out that, in this final rule, Sec. 668.43(d)(2) through (4)
merely require schools to inform students of and direct them to the
Department's program information website, which will contain purely
factual, uncontroversial information. Such website links and access
information are not the kind of ``compelled speech'' that has raised
serious concerns in the past.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ See, e.g., Recht v. Morrisey, 32 F.4th 398, 419 (4th Cir.)
(involving required insertions into attorney advertisements
regarding certain drugs and their approval by the Food and Drug
Administration), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 527 (2022); Am. Hosp.
Ass'n v. Azar, 983 F.3d 528, 540 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (involving
required disclosures of hospital pricing information to reduce
confusion); CTIA--The Wireless Ass'n v. City of Berkeley, 928 F.3d
832, 849 (9th Cir. 2019) (involving required retail information
regarding cellular phone carriage and Federal Communications
Commission standards); Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of
Transp., 687 F.3d 403, 414-15 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (involving the
required prominent display of total prices on airline websites); Am.
Meat Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 76 F.3d 18, 26-27 (D.C. Cir.
2014) (involving required country-of-origin labeling); New York
State Restaurant Ass'n v. New York City Bd. of Health, 556 F.3d 114,
131 (2d Cir. 2009) (regarding required disclosure of calorie
information in connection with the sale of restaurant meals). This
list is not intended to be an exhaustive collection of relevant
sources, but instead an instructive list of court decisions that
upheld regulations even when government subsidies were not at issue.
For a readily distinguishable case that found a constitutional
violation, see Nat'l Inst. of Family & Life Associates v. Becerra,
138 S. Ct. 2361, 2371 (2018) (regarding crisis pregnancy centers).
Note further that, below, we address the freedom of speech and
warnings about GE programs.
\166\ See Ass'n of Priv. Sector Colleges & Universities v.
Duncan, 110 F. Supp. 3d 176, 198-200 (D.D.C. 2015) (alternative
holdings) (involving required disclosures including total costs or
estimated costs of completing a program), aff'd, 640 F. App'x 5, 6
(D.C. Cir. 2016) (noting that, on appeal, the Association no longer
challenged the disclosure rules).
\167\ See Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. & Institutional Rts.,
Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 61-62 (2006) (distinguishing government-mandated
pledges and mottos from a requirement that law schools include
notices regarding recruitment on behalf of the U.S. Military when
the schools offer such assistance to other recruiters).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the rules adopted here regarding the Department's program
information website and the institutional reporting of information on
which it will be based, we believe the rules will directly advance
important government interests in informed student choice and
protection of tax-financed resources, as well as innovation in
educational programs, by making comparable information on program
features and results readily available.\168\ Moreover, the rules are
crafted to serve the Department's goals and do not impose burdens on
the speech rights of institutions. The final rules will make available
objective, factual, uncontroversial, and commonsense information about
programs and their track records. Those outcomes include clearly
defined measures of affordable debt and adequate earnings.\169\ As we
discuss elsewhere in this document, institutions may correct errors in
certain calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ See Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Couns. of Supreme
Ct. of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 651 (1985) (testing advertiser disclosure
requirements for a reasonable relationship to a governmental
interest in preventing deception, and for whether the requirements
are unduly burdensome to speech); Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A.
v. United States, 559 U.S. 229, 259-53 (2010) (following Zauderer);
Am. Hosp. Ass'n, 983 F.3d at 540-42 (same).
\169\ Contrast the dictum in Ass'n of Priv. Colleges &
Universities v. Duncan, 870 F. Supp. 2d 133, 154 n.7 (D.D.C. 2012),
which expressed concern about a ``statement that every student in a
program `should expect to have difficulty repaying his or her
student loans.' '' The requirements related to the program
information website adopted here do not require any such message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the rules will not interfere with institutions'
ability to convey their own messages about program performance and much
else. Students and others will be free to evaluate the content of the
Department's website as they make educational decisions. And we
emphasize that the rules apply only to institutions that
[[Page 70070]]
participate in title IV, HEA programs. Only institutions seeking to
gain or maintain title IV, HEA eligibility will have to report the
information at issue.
Therefore, the program information website directly advances
compelling government interests--preventing deceptive advertising about
postsecondary programs, providing consumers information about an
institution's educational benefits and the outcomes of its programs,
protecting taxpayer interests in the careful use of title IV, HEA
funds, and improving program performance, which often comes from better
and more accessible information about results. Furthermore, as we noted
in the preamble to the 2014 Prior Rule, the program information website
builds on significant Federal interests in consumer information that
are evidenced in decades of statutory disclosure requirements for
institutions that receive title IV, HEA program funds.\170\ Contrary to
the commenter's opinion, the information provided under Sec. 668.43(d)
is purely factual and will not be controversial, in part because the
underlying information is either directly reported to the Department by
the institution or, in the case of earnings data, is the highest
quality data available and provided directly to the Department by a
Federal agency with earnings data. As for concerns related to
institutional data challenges, we address them below under
``Challenges, Hearings, and Appeals.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ 79 FR 64890, 64967 (Oct. 31, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is confident in the quality of information to be
presented on the Department's program information website, and
confident that it will significantly improve what is easily available
today. The individual items of information listed in Sec. 668.43--
including completion and withdrawal rates, D/E rates, EP measure, loan
repayment rates, median loan debt, and median earnings--have been
narrowly tailored to provide students and prospective students with the
information the Department considers most critical in their educational
decision making and in protecting taxpayer interests in the use of
title IV, HEA aid, and in promoting improvement in education programs.
Moreover, the Department intends to use consumer testing to further
inform its determination of any additional items it will include on the
program information website. We expect that this consumer testing will
highlight the information that students find particularly critical in
helping them make informed choices, which will in turn help the
Department protect tax-financed resources.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 668.43 to refer to the Department's
website as the ``program information website'' rather than the
``disclosure website.'' We have also made conforming revisions to Sec.
668.605(c)(2) and (3) by changing the reference from ``disclosure
website'' to ``program information website.''
Mechanism for Providing Transparency
Comments: Several commenters generally supported the proposed
requirements but suggested that the Department provide the information
via a single centralized website such as the College Scorecard rather
than develop a separate website for the proposed metrics. These
commenters noted that the College Scorecard is an established and well-
known comparison tool and that adding the financial value transparency
information to it would give students and families a better-rounded
assessment of program value.
One commenter argued that developing a separate program information
website would be duplicative, confusing to students, and increase costs
to taxpayers when the College Scorecard is already available.
Discussion: We agree that the College Scorecard is a well-
established and beneficial tool for providing information about
postsecondary outcomes. The Department, however, also recognizes that
merely posting the information on the College Scorecard website has had
a limited impact on student choice. For example, a randomized
controlled trial \171\ inviting high school students to examine
program-level data on costs and earnings outcomes had little effect on
students' college choices, possibly due to the fact that few students
accessed the information outside of school-led sessions. Similarly, one
study \172\ found the College Scorecard influenced the college search
behavior of some higher income students but had little effect on lower
income students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ Blagg, Kristin, Matthew M. Chingos, Claire Graves, and
Anna Nicotera. ``Rethinking consumer information in higher
education.'' (2017) Urban Institute, Washington DC. www.urban.org/research/publication/rethinking-consumer-information-higher-education.
\172\ Hurwitz, Michael, and Jonathan Smith. ``Student
responsiveness to earnings data in the College Scorecard.'' Economic
Inquiry 56, no. 2 (2018): 1220-1243. Also, Huntington-Klein 2017.
nickchk.com/Huntington-Klein_2017_The_Search.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer information is most likely to impact choice when tailored
to the applicant's personal context. We seek to improve the information
available to students with several refinements relative to information
available on the College Scorecard, including debt measures that are
inclusive of private education loans and other institutional loans
(including income sharing agreements or tuition payment plans), as well
as measures of institutional, State, and private grant aid. This
information will enable the calculation of both the net price to
students as well as total amounts paid from all sources. We believe
these improvements will better capture the program's costs to students,
families, and taxpayers, and we maintain that these benefits
sufficiently outweigh the costs of developing the new program
information website.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter encouraged the Department to consider
whether requiring institutions to provide disclosures directly to
students could be more efficient than creating a new website.
Another commenter requested that the Department consider a
disclosure template similar to the GE disclosure template featured in
the 2014 Prior Rule, noting that it would provide clear, concise, and
uniform information from institutions to students.
Discussion: We believe that providing financial value transparency
information through a centralized website maintained by the Department
will make this information more convenient because it allows students,
families, institutions, and the public to more easily compare programs
than direct institutional disclosure would allow. In addition,
requiring institutions to complete and post disclosure templates, or to
directly distribute the information to students, would be more
burdensome and costly to institutions than the Department's hosting the
program information website. We of course welcome and encourage
institutions to provide any reliable supplemental and contextual
information to students that they may wish to provide in addition to
the information we make available through the program information
website.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed support for a comprehensive
postsecondary education data system which would provide academic, debt,
and earnings information beyond the institutional or programmatic level
down to the individual student level, and which would follow individual
students across institutions, ultimately providing more complete and
accurate post-graduation debt and earnings information. This commenter
expressed support for the system proposed in this rule as a workaround,
given that the Department is currently prohibited from
[[Page 70071]]
establishing a unit record system of this nature, and noted that in the
absence of such a system the approach proposed in this rule represents
a generally positive workaround.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support. While HEA
section 134 \173\ prohibits the creation of new student unit record
databases, any earnings data provided to the Department by the Federal
agency with earnings data will be at the aggregate level. In the
absence of such a granular system of records, we believe the
transparency and accountability frameworks will provide program-level
information that will exceed the quality and utility of currently
existing information and oversight mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ 20 U.S.C. 1015c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter urged the Department to conduct user
testing on its program information website before it launches.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion. The
Department recognizes the value of consumer testing, and to this end we
deliberately affirm in Sec. 668.43(d)(1) the Secretary's authority to
conduct consumer testing to inform the design of the program
information website, if we determine that such input would likely
enhance the implementation of the transparency framework.
Changes: None.
Scope
Comments: A few commenters expressed support for applying financial
value transparency to both GE and non-GE programs to increase access to
meaningful information about program performance. The commenters
believed this approach addresses concerns about the growing presence at
public and nonprofit institution of certain predatory and wasteful
practices more prevalent in the proprietary sector, such as incentive-
based compensation for online program managers and aggressive marketing
of costly online graduate programs. Another commenter expressed support
for requiring the calculation of meaningful metrics and providing this
information to all students in all eligible programs. One commenter
noted that this information is especially important for graduate
programs.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters opined that any substantive language on
the Department's program information website describing whether a
program has met the standards and its presentation should be consistent
for both GE and non-GE programs. However, these commenters acknowledged
that language regarding potential loss of title IV, HEA program
eligibility would not be relevant to non-GE programs.
Discussion: The commenter correctly noted that any language
relating directly or indirectly to the loss of title IV, HEA program
eligibility must be limited to GE programs, as non-GE programs are not
included in the GE program eligibility framework. In crafting any other
language, we will attempt to deliver relevant content using language
that best serves the needs of students, and we will consider the
commenter's suggestion as we develop that content.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter argued that the requirements proposed at
Sec. 668.43(d)(1)(vii) to provide loan repayment rates for students or
graduates who entered repayment, at Sec. 668.43(d)(1)(x) to provide
median loan debt of students who completed or withdrew from the
program, and at Sec. 668.43(d)(1)(xi) to provide median earnings of
students who completed or withdrew from the program are inappropriate.
This commenter noted that information would capture students who did
not complete the program, further claiming that loan repayment rates,
median loan debt, and median earnings for students who did not complete
a program are unrelated to the quality of the program.
Several additional commenters opined that the information should
not include median loan debt and median earnings for non-completers
because it would have no bearing on the expected earnings of a student
who completes the program.
Discussion: While the D/E rates and EP measure are specific to
graduates of a program, the Department disagrees with the commenters'
assertion that other information such as loan repayment rates, median
loan debt, and median earnings for non-completers is unrelated to the
quality of a program. Graduation is, unfortunately, not the only
possible outcome of even the most effective and well-administered
postsecondary programs. We believe that students and prospective
students have a legitimate interest in knowing the median amount
students borrow when enrolling in a given program and their likelihood
of being able to repay that debt--whether or not those students
ultimately graduate from the program. We contend that such information
will assist students in making better informed enrollment and borrowing
decisions.
We further note that the outcomes of students who do not complete a
program nonetheless reflect, at least to some extent, upon the quality
of the program. It can be reasonably inferred that the capability of an
institution to recruit students likely to succeed, to support and
retain those students once enrolled, and to provide outreach and
support (such as career services and information about loan repayment)
to students who withdraw is indeed related to the overall quality of
the program.
Changes: None.
Content
Comments: One commenter noted that proposed Sec. 668.43(d)(1)
provides that the program information website may include certain
items, but does not actually require any of the listed items to appear
on the new program information website. The commenter further noted
that courts have held that such language would not require the
Department to include any of the listed items. This commenter
speculated that a future Secretary could effectively rescind the
financial value transparency requirements without rulemaking. The
commenter added that by providing students a regulatory right to
specific information (beyond a right to a website, without any
particular content) the Department would clarify that, should it later
opt to remove the information, students would suffer an Article III
injury-in-fact sufficient to confer legal standing.
Discussion: We share this commenter's concerns and appreciate the
suggestion. We concur that proposed Sec. 668.43(d)(1) would have
established access to a Department website without guaranteeing access
to any specific information. Upon further consideration, we have
concluded that some of the listed items of information constitute a
minimum of financial value transparency information that should be
available to students, and that to remove any of those elements would
harm students in the sense of receiving less than that minimum of
important and useful information. We have reviewed the list of items in
proposed Sec. 668.43(d)(1) as well as data that we can foresee being
available to the Department when these rules are implemented, in order
to identify information that is feasible and especially important to
post. Based on that review we have concluded that, to adequately
safeguard students' access to the financial value transparency
information otherwise provided under
[[Page 70072]]
this rule, proposed Sec. 668.43(d)(1) should be revised to require the
Secretary to include certain listed items of information on the
Department's program information website when applicable, while
retaining the flexibility to add additional items. In our judgment and
based on available evidence, the required list of items represents core
program features and matters of special importance to students,
institutions, and others who are interested in evaluating and comparing
postsecondary education programs. These elements are all key pieces of
information that are likely relevant to all students to understand
basic facts about how much the program costs, how long it takes to
complete, the amounts students borrow, their typical earnings after
graduating, and the D/E and EP measures for the program. The elements
we mention as optional may have more or less relevance to some students
and to some programs than others.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 668.43(d)(1)(i) to require the
Secretary to include certain items of information on the Department's
program information website when applicable, including the published
length of the program; the program total enrollment during the most
recently completed award year; the total cost of tuition, fees, books,
supplies, and equipment that a student would incur for completing
within the published length of the program; the percentage of students
who received a Direct Loan, a private loan, or both for enrollment in
the program; the programs median loan debt and median earnings; whether
the program is programmatically accredited and the name of the
accrediting agency; the program's debt-to-earnings rates; and the
program's earnings premium measure. The Department reserves the
flexibility to add additional items, and retains the proposed data
items at Sec. 668.43(d)(1)(ii) as examples of such supplemental data
items.
Comments: One commenter suggested revising the list of information
items in Sec. 668.43(d)(1) to remove redundant information. This
commenter opined that a regulatory requirement for linking to the
College Navigator is unnecessary because the College Navigator is not
user-friendly for a typical student. The commenter also noted that we
could choose to include a link if warranted, since the new program
information website would be under the Department's control.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion, and we agree
that the Department could include a link to the College Navigator
website without specifying it in the list of elements at Sec.
668.43(d)(1).
Changes: We have removed the link to the College Navigator website
from the list of required information items at Sec. 668.43(d)(1).
Comments: Several commenters recommended that the Department
provide generalized program level on-time graduation rates, as well as
program level on-time graduation rates for Pell-eligible students and
for women and for Black, Hispanic, and other students of color.
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenters for these
suggestions. We recognize that this information could be useful to
students and others, and we may consider adding it to the program
information website in the future, particularly if such a change is
supported by consumer testing.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters suggested that the program information
website should identify institutions that serve a high proportion of
low-income students. These commenters argued that a nonprofit
institution enrolling 5 percent Pell-eligible students and graduating
95 percent of students does less to improve social mobility than a
proprietary institution enrolling 80 percent Pell-eligible students and
graduating 60 percent of students.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestion, and we might
consider adding to the program information website in the future some
designation of institutional mission or of programs that serve a high
proportion of students with low income. We note, however, that the
supporting argument made by these commenters is speculative and appears
to understate the emphasis different institutions across all sectors
and credential levels in higher education give to diversity in their
students and the demographics they serve.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter identified loan repayment rates as
important information for students, particularly those in GE programs.
Discussion: We agree that a program's loan repayment rate may be
important information for students and other stakeholders, and this
information is included in the list of information items under Sec.
668.43(d)(1).
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters expressed concern that D/E rate
information and the high debt burden and low earnings labels could
confuse or mislead students, particularly first-generation and
disadvantaged students, and could negatively impact underfunded and
under-resourced institutions in regions experiencing persistent
poverty. A few commenters opined that labeling programs as high debt
burden or low earnings would discourage students from pursuing majors,
such as teaching, which suffer from low wages and staffing shortages.
Discussion: We do not agree that the high-debt-burden or low-
earnings label on the program information website will be confusing or
misleading to students. These designations stem from a program's D/E
rate or EP measure outcomes, which in turn rely upon factual data
provided by institutions themselves and by Federal agencies with the
best available data. Additionally, the meaning of the designations
comports with a plain reading of each respective phrase.
The Department disagrees with the commenters' assertion that
labeling programs as high debt burden or low earnings would discourage
students from pursuing fields such as teaching. While we expect that
the high-debt-burden and low-earnings labels will discourage enrollment
in particular programs at particular institutions that lead to poor
outcomes, we do not expect the financial value transparency framework
to discourage enrollment more broadly in those fields of study. With
regard to the field of education cited by commenters as an area of
concern, as further discussed under ``Impact on Enrollment in Lower
Earning Fields'' above, our analysis reveals that education training
programs are less likely to fail the D/E rates or EP measure than other
programs. Although a career in education may be less lucrative than
other professions within the same credential level, evidence suggests
that programs that prepare graduates for a career in teaching easily
pass the EP threshold for earnings, and even States with lower salaries
have average starting salaries well above the State's EP threshold.
As discussed under ``Geographic Variation in Earnings'' above, our
analysis suggests that being located in persistent poverty counties is
not outcome determinative for students at such institutions.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters recommended that information about
low-earning programs should also include information about Public
Service Loan Forgiveness, as well as other loan forgiveness programs
available through the Department of Health and Human Services and the
Department of Veteran Affairs, so students can make better informed
enrollment and career decisions. One
[[Page 70073]]
commenter added that information about Public Service Loan Forgiveness
and other relevant assistance programs would particularly benefit those
entering the education profession.
One commenter posited that the Department should provide
disclaimers and supplemental information where appropriate, such as a
disclaimer if a program is disproportionally affected by unreported
income. One additional commenter recommended including a disclaimer
addressing programs with small cohort sizes.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions and concur
that much of this information would be useful to students. We, however,
also note that other commenters expressed concerns that the anticipated
list of information items could confuse or overwhelm students. These
conflicting perspectives demonstrate that we must seek an optimal
balance of providing information of the most benefit to students
without unduly distracting from the most salient information. We will
carefully consider what supplemental information to convey on the
program information website, taking into account consumer testing. We
note that the list of required disclosure information items at Sec.
668.43(d)(1) does not preclude the Department from adding additional
information in the future. We further note that nothing would prohibit
institutions from providing supplemental information directly to their
students. Lastly, the final rule excludes programs with fewer than 30
completers in substantially similar programs over the previous four
award years from reporting requirements of the rule, and therefore
their D/E rates and the EP measure will not be available to publish.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 668.408(a) to limit the reporting
requirements to institutions offering any program with at least 30
total completers during the four most recently completed award years.
Comments: One commenter suggested that students and taxpayers would
benefit from information about completion and placement rates; the
existence of academic and related supports; and transfer and
persistence rates.
Another commenter asserted that information such as licensure
passage rates and residency placement rates are necessary to guard
against deceptive recruitment tactics.
One commenter expressed support for providing the typical
employment outcomes for a program.
Another commenter opined that the Department should not only
require job placement rates to be provided, but also regulate how such
placement rates are calculated, citing the collapse of Corinthian as
one example of why providing consistently calculated placement rates is
essential to protect students and the public. This commenter contended
that in the 2014 Prior Rule preamble, the Department cited a 2011
technical review panel, which concluded a uniform job placement
methodology could not be developed without further study because of
data limitations. The commenter noted that the NPRM preceding this
final rule did not mention this study or discuss whether it should be
updated in light of any advances in the available data systems since
2011. The commenter further questioned why the Department's policies
requiring placement rates for certain short-term programs under Sec.
668.8(g) could not be applied for purposes of financial value
transparency.
Discussion: We agree that students will benefit from knowing
completion rates and note that the program's or institution's
completion rates are included among the list of information items at
Sec. 668.43(d)(1).
Though we agree that licensure passage and residency placement
rates would be useful to students, a substantial portion of
postsecondary programs do not prepare students to enter a field
requiring licensure, and many programs do not entail any residency
requirements. In the interest of focusing on the most relevant,
comparable, and broadly applicable information, we do not anticipate
including licensure passage and residency placement rates on the
program information website at this time. We note that the list of
information items at Sec. 668.43(d)(1) is not all-inclusive and the
Department could add these additional items in the future, particularly
if consumer testing supports doing so.
We note that providing the ``typical employment outcomes'' for a
program could mean a variety of things depending upon the audience--for
example, the number of graduates who find employment in a specific
field, the number of graduates who find employment in any field, the
number of graduates who remain employed for a specific length of time,
the job satisfaction of graduates, or any number of other measurements
related in some way to employment. We therefore believe the suggestion
to provide typical employment outcomes is too broad and imprecise to
implement.
While we concur that job placement rates would be beneficial to
most students, we note that accrediting agency methodologies and
requirements for placement rates vary, and inconsistencies in how
institutions currently calculate job placement rates limit their
usefulness in comparing institutions and programs. The placement rate
requirement for short-term programs under Sec. 668.8(g) relies upon
auditor attestations of institutional calculations, which again can
vary amongst institutions and auditors. Developing a uniform Federal
standard for the calculation of placement rates would be a complex and
extensive undertaking surpassing the scope of this rulemaking.
Nonetheless, should the Department introduce such a standard through
future rulemaking, we could add placement rates to the program
information website in the future.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters suggested that any median earnings data
provided under proposed Sec. 668.43(d)(1)(xi) should be based on the
same time periods as those used for the D/E rates and EP measure.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion. While in
general we anticipate providing earnings data for the same time periods
as those used for calculating the D/E rates and EP measure, we retain
the flexibility to provide median earnings during a period determined
by the Secretary. For example, if an institution uses the transitional
reporting option and transitional metrics are calculated then the
cohorts used for determining median debt may differ from the cohorts
used for determining median earnings.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters urged the Department to explain that
the D/E rates exclude funding from State and local governments and only
measure debt burden relative to students, not to taxpayers. One
commenter noted that in the 2019-20 award year, public degree-granting
institutions received 76.6 billion in State appropriations and 14.5
billion in local appropriations.
Several commenters suggested that the Department explore including
an estimate of State and local taxpayer support for programs at public
institutions, arguing that doing so would provide the public and
policymakers a more accurate understanding of program cost, with one
commenter noting that the Department has access to such information
through The Digest of Higher Education Statistics.
Discussion: The Department disagrees with the commenters'
suggestion that
[[Page 70074]]
the regulations unfairly assess for-profit institutions because
programs operated by for-profit institutions are in fact less expensive
than programs operated by public institutions, once State and local
subsidies are taken into account. While some for-profit institutions
may need to charge more than some public institutions because they do
not have State and local appropriation dollars and must pass the
educational cost onto the student, there is some indication that even
when controlling for government subsidies, for-profit institutions
charge more than their public counterparts. Research has found that the
primary costs to students at for-profit institutions, including
foregone earnings, tuition, and loan interest, amounted to $51,600 per
year on average, as compared with $32,200 for the same primary costs at
community colleges.\174\ This analysis estimated taxpayer
contributions, such as government grants, of $7,600 per year for for-
profit institutions and $11,400 for community colleges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ Cellini, S.R. (2012). For Profit Higher Education: An
Assessment of Costs and Benefits. National Tax Journal, 65 (1):153-
180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goals of this rule are to provide increased transparency of
program outcomes and improved oversight of Federal taxpayer funds.
While public institutions often benefit from State and local
appropriations, we maintain that monitoring, providing, and otherwise
overseeing such sources of institutional revenue falls outside the
scope of this rule. We further note that non-Federal funding is not
exclusive to public institutions and could include any number of
sources such as endowments, research grants, charitable donations,
private equity, fees from publicly offered services, and so forth.
Requiring institutions to report all such sources of funding would be
unduly burdensome, and the inclusion of all such sources of funding on
the Department's website would likely overwhelm many students and
distract from the core information provided under these regulations.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter urged the Department to clarify that the
financial value transparency information does not measure academic
quality (e.g., skill of faculty, learning outcomes, quality of
facilities) or the lifetime earnings of graduates.
Discussion: The Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment
regulations are intended to establish an accountability and
transparency framework to encourage eligible postsecondary programs to
produce acceptable debt and earnings outcomes, apprise current and
prospective students of those outcomes, and provide better information
about program price. Other factors such as those mentioned by the
commenter may contribute to these financial outcomes, but we do not
believe that students would mistake the financial value transparency
information that the Department proposes to present in a
straightforward manner on its website as for a direct measurement of
academic quality. While the Department believes that students should be
informed about the debt and earnings consequences of their
postsecondary choices, we may consider adding language to the student
program information website noting that the debt and earnings outcomes
of programs are a subset of the myriad factors students may consider
important in deciding where to attend, particularly if such language is
supported by consumer testing.
Changes: None.
Comments: For public and nonprofit institutions, one commenter
recommended that the Department additionally identify whether all
revenues of the institution are committed to its educational and
charitable mission and whether the majority of net tuition revenues in
the program are used for post-enrollment instruction and student
support. The commenter further suggested that such information should
be affirmed in a footnote on the institution's audited financial
statement. The commenter opined that this additional information would
promote the legitimate nonprofit operation of institutions and shield
students from incorrect assumptions that tuition dollars will be used
to support their success in cases where the institution diverts funds
to recruitment or other purposes. This commenter also suggested
initially making this additional information a voluntary option, to
accommodate institutions which may need time to add those measure to
their internal accounting.
Discussion: While we share the commenter's concern about some
nonprofit institutions' use of title IV, HEA revenue for marketing,
recruitment, and other pre-enrollment functions unrelated to academic
instruction and student support, we do not believe that the financial
value transparency website is the best vehicle to address that concern.
The Department also received comments related to this issue on both the
Financial Responsibility and the Certification Procedures regulations
proposed in the NPRM. Those issues will be discussed in a separate
forthcoming final rule.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters encouraged the Department to provide
disaggregated data whenever possible.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for that suggestion. The
metrics in the rule currently focus on whether a program is leading to
high-debt-burdens or enhanced earnings for the majority of its
completers. We will carefully consider what additional information
might feasibly and usefully be added to give students more tailored
information on program performance for students in their own
demographic group, particularly in light of consumer testing and
privacy safeguards.
Changes: None.
Distribution and Linking Requirements
Comments: Several commenters voiced general support for requiring
institutions to provide current and prospective students with a link to
the Department's program information website and urged the Department
to preserve this component of the proposed rule. One commenter argued
that students enrolling in postsecondary programs are sufficiently
mature to be expected to review the information available to them
without requiring institutions to actively distribute a link to the
material.
A few commenters expressed concern about requiring institutions to
post a link to the Department's program information website on every
institutional web page containing information about a program or
institution's academics, cost, financial aid, or admissions. One
commenter likened this requirement to the requirement in the FAFSA
Simplification Act for institutions to provide all elements of the cost
of attendance on any portion of the institution's website that
describes tuition and fees. This commenter noted that while it appears
to be a simple requirement, it has already generated numerous inquiries
from institutions about how to comply.
Several commenters noted that although adding links to the
Department's program information website to institutions' websites
would be a one-time cost and burden, large institutions may have
hundreds of web pages requiring these links. These commenters advised
that such a requirement could lead to compliance issues if such an
institution inadvertently neglected to post the required link on one or
a few web pages.
One commenter further noted that monitoring and enforcing such a
broad requirement could divert the Department's resources away from
more impactful issues and urged the
[[Page 70075]]
Department to require institutions to link to the program information
website only on their main website and on each individual program's
landing pages.
Discussion: We thank those commenters for their support. The
Department disagrees with the commenter who suggested relying on
students to find the Department's website on their own because students
enrolling in postsecondary programs vary widely in life experience and
financial literacy. For many students, selecting an institution and
program of study is likely to be one of the most financially
significant decisions of their life. While some students may possess
the financial savvy and inclination to independently research and
compare institutions and programs, others may not. We believe that
requiring institutions to inform students about the Department's
program information website under Sec. 668.43(d)(3) and (4) would
benefit students by informing them about the existence of information
that could aid in their decision making, without unduly burdening
institutions.
Furthermore, we do not believe the requirement for institutions to
post a link to the Department's program information website on every
institutional web page containing information about a program or
institution's academic, cost, financial aid, or admissions is confusing
or unclear. The requirements pertaining to the posting of Cost of
Attendance information under the FAFSA Simplification Act are unrelated
to the financial value transparency information established under this
rule, and many of the inquiries concerning those Cost of Attendance
posting requirements were about the specific content of the information
that must be posted to meet FAFSA Simplification Act requirements. We
note that for the required financial value transparency information,
institutions must post the link to the Department's program information
website on all relevant web pages. We believe that institutions can
reasonably meet this requirement and, as noted in the RIA, we believe
that this activity will require an estimated 50 hours per institution.
We expect to provide sub-regulatory guidance and training to
institutions in advance of the effective date of these provisions to
minimize this burden. With regard to the argument about the potential
for inadvertent noncompliance with the posting requirements, we note
that an institution could inadvertently fail to comply with any of our
regulatory provisions, and it remains the institution's responsibility
to have the necessary staff, systems and processes to be able to comply
with all of our regulatory requirements. We do not expect that
monitoring and enforcing this requirement will require significant
resources and hinder the Department's other compliance monitoring and
enforcement efforts.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested that publicizing information and
directing students to it during their senior year in high school or
earlier could better impact enrollment decisions.
Another commenter expressed support for ensuring students receive
the information before enrolling or making a financial commitment,
agreeing with the Department that information on program value should
be provided at relevant points of entry. This commenter further
suggested that the Department consider providing access to this
information through the FAFSA portal to provide the information to
students earlier in the decision-making process in a manner that would
not rely on institutional compliance.
Discussion: The timing of when applicants receive information about
institutions and programs is critical. Data should be available at key
points during the college search process, and applicants should have
sufficient time and resources to process new information. Informational
interventions work best when they arrive at the right moment and are
offered with additional guidance and support.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ Carrel, S. & Sacerdote, B. (2017). Why Do College-Going
Interventions Work? American Economic Journal; Applied Economics.
1(3) 124-151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not agree that providing information to prospective students
during high school or earlier would be more beneficial than providing
it closer to when the student makes the decision to enroll. We,
however, appreciate the commenter's suggestion to provide information
about the program information website to students through the FAFSA
portal. While it would not be possible to incorporate this change to
the 2024-25 FAFSA portal at this stage of development, we will consider
adding it in a future award year.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters opined that the requirements would
present obstacles to serving the basic needs of enrolled students by
delaying title IV, HEA disbursements. These commenters also opined that
the information would arrive too late in the admissions process to
affect college enrollment decisions.
Discussion: We do not agree that the requirement to distribute
information about the program information website would disrupt the
basic needs of students. We note that the distribution requirements at
Sec. 668.43(d)(3) and (4) are not directly tied to the disbursement of
title IV, HEA funds. We also disagree that the distribution requirement
would arrive too late to affect enrollment decisions. The institution
must distribute information about the program information website to
any prospective student before the student signs an enrollment
agreement, completes registration, or makes a financial commitment to
the institution. If the student is considering enrolling in a risky
program, the acknowledgment or warning requirements at Sec. Sec.
668.407 and 668.605 provide additional information and protection.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested we clarify whether or how the
definition of ``student'' in Sec. 668.2 applies to the new program
information website.
Discussion: The definition of ``student'' in Sec. 668.2 applies
specifically to subparts Q and S. The requirements related to the
program information website in Sec. 668.43 exist outside of subparts Q
and S. Rather than relying upon the definition of ``student'' in Sec.
668.2, Sec. 668.43(d)(4) requires an institution to provide
information to access the program information website to any enrolled
title IV, HEA recipient prior to the start date of the first payment
period associated with each subsequent award year in which the student
continues enrollment at the institution.
Changes: None.
Cooling-Off Period
Comments: One commenter noted that the NPRM preamble text suggests
that a three-day ``cooling off'' period after distributing information
about the program information website is required for all enrollments,
not just those where warnings are required, while the regulatory text
of proposed Sec. 668.43(d)(4) does not include such a requirement.
This commenter asked that the Department clarify in the final rule that
no pre-enrollment cooling-off period is required except when a warning
requirement is in place for the intended program of study.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for alerting us to the
discrepancy between the proposed regulatory text and the preamble
discussion in the NPRM. We confirm that the three-day cooling off
period in Sec. 668.605(f)(2) only applies when a warning requirement
is in place for a GE program and does not apply to the distribution of
information
[[Page 70076]]
about the Department's program information website under Sec.
668.43(d).
Changes: None.
Student Acknowledgments and GE Warnings--Sec. Sec. 668.407 and 668.605
General Support
Comments: Several commenters expressed support for the proposed
requirement in Sec. 668.407 of the financial value transparency
framework for students enrolling in a high-debt program to acknowledge
viewing financial value information before the institution may enter an
enrollment agreement with the student. One commenter further noted that
information and market forces alone are insufficient without an
acknowledgment requirement. One commenter expressed support for
requiring acknowledgments prior to aid disbursement for poor-performing
programs as an effective approach to improving the outcomes of students
and encouraging the use of Federal aid at better-performing
institutions.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for their support. We have
retained the student acknowledgment provision in Sec. 668.407 of the
financial value transparency framework, with certain modifications that
we explain below. Core features mentioned by these commenters remain
the same compared to the proposed rule. Among those features are, for
example, that the acknowledgments will not be limited to information
about gainful employment programs but instead will extend to certain
other postsecondary education programs; that the acknowledgments will
be submitted by certain students to the Department through its program
information website; and that the students will acknowledge having
viewed information on the Department's website regarding particular
programs that have substandard results on the D/E rates measure. As the
commenters understood, the acknowledgments will help make salient to
students, at important junctures in their decision-making processes,
certain debt-related and other information about title IV, HEA eligible
programs, and thereby assist students in making informed choices about
their postsecondary education. Such informed decisions may benefit not
only these students but also the Federal Government and others to the
extent that title IV, HEA support is channeled, through informed
student choices, toward programs that are not leaving graduates with
unaffordable debt. Whatever is the full array of values that people
pursue through higher education and training, including nonpecuniary
goals involving service to others, unaffordable debt can obstruct the
achievement of all those goals.
Changes: None.
General Opposition
Comments: One commenter suggested that requiring acknowledgment of
the program information website before disbursement creates a barrier
to receiving title IV, HEA funds, and that institutions are prevented
from adding additional barriers to title IV, HEA aid by statute. Many
commenters argued that requiring students to acknowledge having viewed
program information on the Department's website prior to enrollment
would delay course registration and impede the disbursement of aid to
students in need of such funds to cover costs for housing, food, and
other basic needs.
Discussion: The student acknowledgment requirement in Sec. 668.407
of the financial value transparency framework does not conflict with
HEA provisions intended to protect student access to title IV aid.
Instead, this requirement will provide additional protection to
students, as well as taxpayers, by providing certain information to
students about programs before institutions enter into enrollment
agreements with students.
Under the transparency framework's student acknowledgment rule, in
certain circumstances the Department will require prospective students
to acknowledge to the Department that they have viewed relevant
information on the Department's program information website before
signing an enrollment agreement with an institution regarding a
certificate program or graduate degree program. The acknowledgment will
be made electronically on the Department's website. In itself, this
step toward enrollment and title IV, HEA aid is not onerous for
students. Moreover, we will except undergraduate degree programs in
this final rule (see Sec. 668.407(a)), for reasons explained elsewhere
in this document, thus avoiding undue burden for programs where
prospective students may not generally apply to a particular major (but
rather ``declare'' a major after being enrolled for some time in the
institution). Furthermore, and also as explained below, this final rule
states that only prospective students,\176\ not enrolled students, must
give acknowledgments when the relevant program has substandard results
regarding debt burdens under the debt-to-earnings (D/E) rates measure
(see Sec. 668.407(b) and (c)). That adjustment to the regulation
relieves much of the commenters' concerns about disruptions of title
IV, HEA student aid, and targets the requirement to a group of students
most likely to act on the information in considering where to enroll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ In Sec. 668.2 of these rules, ``prospective student'' is
defined as an individual who has contacted an eligible institution
for the purpose of requesting information about enrolling in a
program or who has been contacted directly by the institution or by
a third party on behalf of the institution about enrolling in a
program. Potential transfer students are among those who may meet
this definition of ``prospective student.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We explained in the NPRM our decision to limit the transparency
framework's student acknowledgment requirement to programs with high
debt burdens under the D/E rates measure,\177\ and we adopt that
position again here. While many non-GE students surely care about
earnings, non-GE programs are more likely to have nonpecuniary goals.
Requiring students to acknowledge low-earning information as a
condition of receiving aid might risk conveying that economic gain is
more important than nonpecuniary considerations. In contrast, students'
ability to pursue nonpecuniary goals is jeopardized and taxpayers bear
additional costs if students enroll in high-debt burden programs.
Requiring acknowledgment of the D/E rates ensures students are alerted
to risk on that dimension.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ 88 FR 32300, 32336 (May 19, 2023).
\178\ We note as well that Sec. 668.605 in subpart S of these
regulations, which cover GE programs, includes warnings from
institutions to prospective and enrolled students as well as
acknowledgments from students to the Department through its website.
Those GE warnings and acknowledgments will help inform students when
GE programs are at risk of losing title IV eligibility in the
following year. And those GE provisions in subpart S will complement
the student acknowledgment provision in the transparency framework
of subpart Q, the latter of which helps serve the interests of non-
GE students where program eligibility based on performance metrics
is not at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, acknowledgments are a traditional, typical, and simple
method of enhancing awareness of information before decisions are made.
In this instance, the online mechanism for the acknowledgment will be
relatively simple, and the decision in question involves both a
student's education and Government support for that education. When
programs fail certain performance metrics, the Department will protect
prospective students and taxpayers by asking those students to pause
and acknowledge information on the Department's program information
website before they enter into an enrollment agreement for that
program.
We agree that institutions may not add eligibility requirements
that would prevent students or groups of students from receiving title
IV, HEA aid for
[[Page 70077]]
which they are otherwise eligible. But these student acknowledgment
rules do not implicate those protections for students. Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters urged the Department to ensure that
institutions receive immediate confirmation when students complete any
required acknowledgments through the Department's program information
website, to ensure timely disbursement of title IV, HEA funds. One
commenter noted that the system for providing D/E and EP metrics has
not yet been developed and that, as a result, institutions will not be
timely made aware of metric outcomes, causing a delay in disbursements
of title IV, HEA funds. One commenter suggested that the Department
instead administer financial value transparency acknowledgment
requirements through the Free Application for Federal Student Aid
(FAFSA), which would provide the relevant information to each student
at an important stage in the student's decision process while also
eliminating disbursement delays and relieving administrative burden on
institutions.
Discussion: We understand the commenters' concerns and we have made
certain modifications to Sec. 668.407 as proposed. To begin, in this
final rule the Department has decided to require student
acknowledgments under that regulation before students enter into an
enrollment agreement with the relevant institution (Sec.
668.407(c)(1)), rather than before an institution may disburse title
IV, HEA aid. Pegging student acknowledgments to an enrollment agreement
should reduce concerns about unjustified disruptions in title IV aid,
while nonetheless enabling students to make informed choices at an
adequately early stage in the decision-making process. In the final
rule, we also clarify that the Department will monitor an institution's
compliance with the pre-enrollment-agreement acknowledgment requirement
through audits, program reviews, and other investigations (Sec.
668.407(c)(2)). Although the students will make acknowledgments to the
Department and the Department will operate the acknowledgment process
through its website, institutions will check whether the students whom
they seek to enroll have completed the acknowledgment. As we have
explained, an acknowledgment is a simple yet important step that
students must take when Sec. 668.407 applies due to substandard debt-
to-earnings results for the relevant program. In addition, we reiterate
here that Sec. 668.407 will apply to prospective students (Sec.
668.407(b)), rather than enrolled students.
We recognize that requiring prospective students to acknowledge the
program information prior to an enrollment agreement means that some
students will have to take that step before course registration and
disbursement of aid. We understand students' need for timely access to
title IV, HEA funds not only to cover direct institutional costs but
also to cover indirect educationally related expenses. We note again,
however, that the acknowledgment process will not be lengthy or
particularly burdensome to students. And the adjustments to the rule
that we have made in light of commenter concerns should minimize
disruption while enhancing informed choice. We believe that such
information is necessary to make an informed decision about whether to
enroll in a program, and that the urgency of a student's need for this
information warrants the potential delay, which again should not be
excessive or disruptive.
Moreover, in part to reduce burden for institutions and students,
we will limit the acknowledgment requirement in Sec. 668.407 to
programs that do not lead to an undergraduate degree. We believe this
change will better target the acknowledgment requirements to programs
to which students tend to directly apply. In addition, our empirical
analysis shows that high-debt-burden programs are relatively rare among
undergraduate degree programs outside the proprietary sector.
Commenters are correct in observing that the website for delivering
financial value transparency information and administering
acknowledgments is not yet developed. As we develop the website and its
underlying processes, we will consider ways to efficiently and timely
transmit confirmation of completed acknowledgments to institutions.
Nevertheless, we recognize the potential for delays and uncertainty as
the Department designs and deploys new systems to implement these
requirements. To minimize disruption and facilitate a smoother
implementation of the Department's program information website and
acknowledgment requirements, the Department has specified that the
requirements under Sec. 668.43(d) and the acknowledgment requirements
under Sec. Sec. 668.407 and 668.605 are not applicable until July 1,
2026.
We appreciate the commenter's suggestion to administer the
acknowledgment requirements through the FAFSA. However, administering
the acknowledgment process through the FAFSA would not reach
prospective students who have not yet applied for title IV, HEA funds.
The acknowledgment requirement in Sec. 668.407 is limited to
prospective students and does not apply to enrolled students. We
believe that administering the acknowledgment process through the
Department's program information website is the most efficient and
effective approach, but we will continue to analyze ways of most
seamlessly delivering information to students.
Changes: The Department has specified that the requirements under
Sec. 668.43(d) and the acknowledgment requirements under Sec. Sec.
668.407 and 668.605 are not applicable until July 1, 2026. Furthermore,
the Department requires student acknowledgments under Sec.
668.407(c)(1) before students enter into an enrollment agreement with
the relevant institution, and the Department will monitor an
institution's compliance with the pre-enrollment-agreement
acknowledgment requirement through audits, program reviews, and other
investigations per Sec. 668.407(c)(2). In addition, we exclude
undergraduate degree programs from the acknowledgment requirements at
Sec. 668.407(a)(1).
Comments: One commenter suggested that the Department consider a
two-year pilot study, during which the student acknowledgment and GE
warning requirements would not be applied, to review the earnings and
salaries of completers to enable a real-world comparison of costs and
earnings.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion. Although we
will certainly monitor the median earnings data obtained under these
regulations, we believe that the need for the financial value
transparency framework and GE accountability framework is too great to
delay implementation for a two-year study. As noted above, however, we
recognize the potential for delays and uncertainty as the Department
designs and deploys new systems to implement these requirements. To
minimize disruption and facilitate a smoother implementation of the
program information website and acknowledgment requirements, the
Department has specified that those requirements are not applicable
until July 1, 2026.
Changes: The Department has specified that Sec. 668.43(d) and the
acknowledgment requirements under Sec. 668.407 are not applicable
until July 1, 2026. In addition, we exclude undergraduate degree
programs from the acknowledgment requirements at Sec. 668.407(a)(1).
Comments: Many commenters opined that the proposed warning
requirements
[[Page 70078]]
in Sec. 668.605 of the GE accountability framework would irreparably
harm programs, rendering ongoing recruitment impossible and leading to
program teach-outs and closures after warnings were provided to
students. Several commenters opined that requiring warnings after a
single year of failing the D/E rates or EP measure would fail to
account for market shifts, emergencies, disasters, or other unforeseen
conditions, and would result in program closures precisely when they
are most needed, such as during an economic downturn when many
dislocated workers tend to seek retraining. Several commenters argued
that such a swift warning requirement does not establish a pattern of
poor performance and would offer institutions little or no opportunity
to improve troubled programs. One commenter further noted that sudden
changes to National or State licensure requirements could have far-
reaching effects, causing more students than usual to fail licensure
exams and delaying employment, causing programs to fail one or both
metrics, and requiring warnings due to circumstances beyond an
institution's control. One commenter predicted that these consequences
would especially impact institutions that focus on a single program,
such as cosmetology institutions, claiming that for such institutions a
required warning would be tantamount to an accelerated school closure.
Discussion: We believe that enrolled students and prospective
students should receive a warning when a GE program may lose
eligibility in the following award year based on its D/E rates or EP
measure. We recognize that a program's D/E rates and EP measure may be
atypical in a particular year as a result of any number of factors and
for that reason a GE program will not lose eligibility for failing the
D/E rates or EP measure in a single year. However, a student enrolled
in a GE program that loses its title IV, HEA program eligibility
because of its D/E rates or earnings premium faces potentially serious
consequences. If the program loses eligibility before the student
completes the program, the student may need to transfer to an eligible
program at the same or another institution to continue to receive title
IV, HEA program funds. Even if the program does not lose eligibility
before the student completes the program, the student could be,
nonetheless, enrolled in a program consistently associated with poor
earnings outcomes or unmanageable levels of debt. Accordingly, we
believe it is essential that students be warned about a program's
potential loss of eligibility based on its D/E rates or earnings
premium.
The student warning will provide currently enrolled students with
important information about program outcomes and the potential effect
of those outcomes on the program's future eligibility for title IV, HEA
program funds. This information will also help prospective students
make informed decisions about where to pursue their postsecondary
education. Some students who receive a warning may decide to transfer
to another program or choose not to enroll in such a program. Other
students may decide to continue or enroll even after being made aware
of the program's poor performance. In either case, students will have
received the information needed to make an informed decision.
We believe that ensuring that students have this information is
necessary, even if it may be more difficult for programs that must
issue student warnings to attract and retain students, and even in
cases where an institution only offers a single program of study.
Institutions may mitigate the impact of the warnings on student
enrollment by offering meaningful assurances and alternatives to the
students who enroll in, or remain enrolled in, a program subject to the
student warning requirements.
We disagree with the arguments from commenters about the effects of
licensing changes. The Department does not dictate how many hours
States require for students to sit for licensing tests. And since
States dictate the required program lengths for licensure or
certification, we think it is reasonable to assume States have
considered the hours needed for someone to then be able to pass any
necessary tests. As noted already in this discussion, to the extent
there are changes in passage rates, the fact that programs have to fail
more than once will mitigate this issue by giving institutions time to
improve. Commenters raised the issue of potential changes to the length
of GE programs in a part of the NPRM that will be addressed in a
separate final rule.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed concern that the rule as proposed
would require programs without aid to send letters to prospective
students stating that their target occupation is a low-income
profession.
Discussion: This is incorrect. The warning provision requires
schools to distribute warnings to prospective students of GE programs
that still are eligible for title IV, HEA aid but are at risk of losing
it so that the prospective student can make an informed decision
cognizant of the possibility that the program may lose title IV, HEA
eligibility before the student has completed the program. The warning
language does not identify any occupations as low-income professions,
but rather alerts prospective students to the fact that the program in
question has not passed standards established by the Department based
on the amounts students borrow for enrollment in the program and their
reported earnings, as applicable, and directs prospective students to
the relevant program information web page so that they can explore more
contextual information.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter objected to any warning requirements for GE
programs under subpart S, opining that student acknowledgments under
subpart Q are sufficient. Another commenter posited that neither the
warning nor acknowledgment requirements are necessary because the
requirement to post links to the Department's program information
website would be sufficient.
One commenter maintained that establishing acceptable levels of
performance regarding debt and earnings exceeds the role of government
because the Department would substitute its own judgment of
acceptability thresholds for those of prospective students whose risk
tolerances could potentially differ. This commenter further postulated
that some students could rely on the Department's assessment and still
realize poor results, misinterpret ``no results'' as an absence of
risk, or unnecessarily forego opportunities because the Department's
information increased their risk aversion.
Discussion: The Department disagrees with the argument that the
student acknowledgment requirements in Sec. 668.407 under subpart Q
obviate the need for GE program warning requirements in Sec. 668.605
under subpart S. Those rules regard different programs, and they
involve different information and circumstances. The student
acknowledgment requirements under subpart Q are limited to prospective
students,\179\ and they are limited to programs that do not lead to
[[Page 70079]]
an undergraduate degree and that have high debt-burden results under
the D/E rates measure. In contrast, the acknowledgment and warning
requirements under subpart S apply to GE programs (including degree
programs) that are at risk of losing title IV, HEA eligibility because
of failing either the D/E rates or the EP measure, and include
additional content designed to assist prospective students and enrolled
students facing a potential loss of funds, such as information about
the transferability of credit, availability of refunds, and continued
availability of the program of study in the event of a loss of title
IV, HEA eligibility. The rules for GE program warnings and
acknowledgments are crafted for the special circumstances of GE
programs. Hence the student acknowledgment requirements in Sec.
668.407 do not duplicate the GE program warning and acknowledgment
requirements in Sec. 668.605. Although the two provisions serve some
of the same general purposes, such as informing students who seek title
IV, HEA aid about higher education programs, Sec. 668.407 does not
eliminate the need for Sec. 668.605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ In Sec. 668.2 of these rules, ``prospective student'' is
defined as an individual who has contacted an eligible institution
for the purpose of requesting information about enrolling in a
program or who has been contacted directly by the institution or by
a third party on behalf of the institution about enrolling in a
program. And ``student'' is defined, for the purposes of subparts Q
and S of this part and of Sec. 668.43(d), as an individual who
received title IV, HEA program funds for enrolling in the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We further disagree with the contention that the requirement in
Sec. 668.43(d)(2) for institutions to post links to the Department's
program information website renders both the acknowledgment and warning
requirements unnecessary. As discussed above, the timing of the
delivery of relevant information significantly affects the impact of
that information on students. Absent acknowledgment and warning
requirements, even students who may have carefully reviewed information
about their program of study on the Department's program information
website before enrolling may be unaware of changes in that information
that may have occurred since they first accessed the website. The
Department seeks to require that, for programs where acknowledgments or
warnings are required and before certain specified events such as the
signing of an enrollment agreement, students have reviewed up-to-date
information including information that may implicate the student's
access to title IV, HEA funds in future years to complete the program.
With regard to the commenter's claim that establishing acceptable
levels of performance regarding debt and earnings exceeds the role of
government, the Department disagrees with the commenter's conclusions.
As discussed in more detail under ``Authority for this Regulatory
Action'' in this document, this framework is supported in principal
part by the Secretary's generally applicable rulemaking authority,
which includes provisions regarding data collection and dissemination,
and which applies in part to title IV of the HEA, as well as
authorizations and directives within title IV of the HEA regarding the
collection and dissemination of potentially useful information about
higher education programs. We also disagree with the notion that the
Department may not seek to inform students about program outcomes as
they evaluate programs within a lawful range of options for Federal
Government support. Existing law and sensible policy indicate that the
Department's role in supporting the interests of students, taxpayers,
and others is more meaningful than some commenters suppose.
As further discussed above under ``Statutory Authority for GE
Framework,'' the basic question of whether the HEA authorizes GE
performance measures has been resolved repeatedly in the Department's
favor. Questions of how exactly to specify the GE performance metrics
involve matters of detail, which the Department is statutorily
authorized and well-positioned to resolve. It is not only reasonable
but also in accord with all indications of Congress's intent to
conclude that a program does not prepare students for gainful
employment in a recognized occupation if typical program graduates are
left with unaffordable debt, or if they earn no more than comparable
high school graduates. In addition, the Department is fully authorized
to share information about the debt and earnings outcomes of a program
with students, institutions, and the public to the extent that such
information is available. In whatever manner the information is
labeled, providing this information to students will allow them to make
better informed enrollment and borrowing decisions.
Changes: As discussed in General Opposition under Program
Information website above, we have revised the reference to the
Department's website as the ``program information website'' rather than
the ``disclosure website.''
Scope of Acknowledgments
Comments: Many commenters expressed support for requiring
acknowledgments from students entering high-debt-burden GE and non-GE
programs, but opined that acknowledgments should also be required when
students enter low-earning non-GE programs. Some such commenters
further argued that: (1) the Department's analysis in the NPRM
concluded that more students enrolled in failing non-GE programs than
in failing GE programs; (2) earnings outcomes are important even to
students in non-GE programs; (3) students do not differentiate programs
by institution type; and (4) not applying acknowledgment requirements
to non-GE programs that fail the EP measure would unfairly shield poor-
performing programs at public and nonprofit institutions from any
meaningful impact of poor performance.
In contrast, a few commenters urged the Department to exempt all
non-GE programs from student acknowledgment requirements because of the
time and burden associated with identifying relevant students and
ensuring that they complete the acknowledgments, or because many non-GE
programs are intended as only the first steps of a student's education
and necessarily lead to graduate or doctoral studies or clinical work
requirements. One commenter theorized that borrowers would likely
ignore warnings associated with non-GE program as a result of the
REPAYE income-driven repayment plan. One commenter suggested that the
Department consider a tiered approach applying acknowledgment
requirements to GE programs as well as a subset of low-earning non-GE
programs, opining that such an approach would recognize the interests
of students who prioritize earnings potential while reducing burden on
institutions.
Discussion: We do not agree that students should be required to
complete acknowledgments when enrolling in low-earning non-GE programs,
nor do we agree that not applying acknowledgment requirements to non-GE
programs that fail the EP measure would unfairly shield poor-performing
programs at public and nonprofit institutions from meaningful impacts
of poor performance. Public institutions are subject to additional
layers of oversight and scrutiny at the State or local level, and
nonprofit institutions typically are subject to oversight by a board of
directors. We do anticipate that a considerable portion of non-GE
programs lead to high debt burden or low earnings under the financial
value transparency metrics, and we understand that many students
seeking to enroll in non-GE programs may place high importance on
improving their earnings. But we believe that students who enroll in
non-GE programs are more likely to have nonpecuniary goals, and
requiring students to acknowledge low-earning information as a
condition of receiving aid might risk improperly conveying that
economic gain is more important than those nonpecuniary considerations.
We concur that most
[[Page 70080]]
students likely compare programs rather than institution types, but we
note that in many cases the types of programs offered across
institutions significantly vary, and public and nonprofit institutions
are less likely to predominately market their programs solely based on
employment and earnings outcomes.
We also disagree with the requests to entirely exempt non-GE
programs from student acknowledgment requirements. As further discussed
under ``Burden'' below, we believe that the burden associated with
identifying relevant students and ensuring that they complete the
acknowledgments is reasonable considering the benefit of providing
relevant and timely information to students who enroll or continue in
non-GE programs that do not lead to an undergraduate degree and are
associated with high debt burden. We concur that many non-GE programs
are intended as the initial stage of a student's education leading to
further graduate or doctoral studies or clinical work requirements, but
that does not obviate the relevance of information about debt outcomes
in better informing students' enrollment choices, nor does the
possibility that borrowers might ignore warnings associated with non-GE
program as a result of the REPAYE income-driven repayment plan take
away the relevance of this information.
Changes: None.
Duration of Acknowledgments
Comments: One commenter indicated that the duration of the
obligation to obtain acknowledgments under proposed Sec. 668.407(a)(1)
of the financial value transparency framework appeared to be
unspecified. The commenter recommended that the duration mirror that of
GE programs requiring warnings and acknowledgments--that is, until the
program receives two consecutive passing outcomes.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's suggestion.
We have made changes to Sec. 668.407(b)(3) to specify the duration and
frequency of the requirement. Under revised Sec. 668.407(b)(3),
prospective students must provide acknowledgments until the program has
passing D/E rates or three years after the institution was last
notified it had failing D/E rates, whichever is earlier. The three-year
``look-back'' period is relevant only in situations where a program
might fail the D/E rates measure in one year, but then not have rates
issued by the Secretary in the following year(s) due to the number of
completers at that program falling below the minimum threshold
necessary for the Secretary to issue the program's median debt and
median earnings. In choosing to disregard rates over three years old,
the Department is balancing the goals of making students aware of the
financial risk involved in enrolling in the program and fairness.
A reduction in the number of completers at a program is very
unlikely to be indicative of improvement in its performance. As a
result, a program that fails the D/E rates measure in one year, and
then experiences a decline in the number of completers leading its D/E
rates not to be issued, is still likely to be failing the D/E rates
measure. At the same time, we do not believe it fair to keep the
acknowledgment requirement indefinitely if new rates are not
calculated. After several years, continuing to base student
acknowledgments on earlier calculated rates yet without confirmation of
substandard program performance becomes less helpful to students and
ultimately unreasonable. After considering the relevant factors and the
importance of an administrable rule, we have chosen a period of three
years as a reasonable and balanced intermediate option. That option
falls between maintaining the student acknowledgment requirement for a
single year (which is the minimum-length option and which would provide
the least protection for students under the acknowledgment rule) and
the lengthier five-year look-back period (which we will apply under
Sec. 668.602(c) for determining whether a GE program has failed a GE
measure in two of the three most recent years when the GE measures were
calculated). Since GE program eligibility is based on outcomes over
three consecutive years in which metrics were calculated, the longer
five-year period is apt for that purpose. We are not using the same
duration set out in Sec. 668.605 for GE student warnings and
acknowledgments because the duration in Sec. 668.605 is based on when
an institution mitigates the risk of losing title IV, HEA eligibility
for a GE program, which is not a factor for non-GE programs.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 668.407(b)(3) to require
acknowledgments annually until the program has passing D/E rates or
three years after the institution was last notified that the program
had failing D/E rates, whichever is earlier.
Comments: One commenter expressed appreciation for requiring
subsequent acknowledgments for re-enrolling students after 12 months,
as opposed to a 30-day window.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for their support. We believe
that a 12-month window appropriately balances the need for subsequent
acknowledgments for students who re-enroll well after providing an
initial acknowledgment with the time and effort needed to secure the
acknowledgment.
Changes: None.
Content of Acknowledgments and Warnings
Comments: A few commenters expressed concern about the Department's
decision not to publish specific text for institutions to convey
acknowledgment requirements to students. These commenters predicted
that offering this discretion to institutions would risk a patchwork
approach that could provide some students with more clarity about their
debt prospects than others.
Discussion: We disagree with the commenters. While institutions may
communicate acknowledgment requirements differently, the acknowledgment
would be facilitated through the Department's program information
website. The Department's website will present information to students
in a clear and consistent way with the goal of ensuring students
understand the risk of incurring high debt.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted that the Department makes GE program
eligibility determinations, not institutions, and opined that the
wording of student warnings regarding GE programs should convey that
the Department has chosen to revoke eligibility based on its own
criteria.
Discussion: We agree that the Department, rather than an
institution, makes GE program eligibility determinations. We disagree,
however, with the assertion that warnings to students enrolled in
failing GE programs should convey that the Department has chosen to
revoke eligibility based on its own criteria. Students must receive a
warning when a GE program faces a potential loss of title IV, HEA
eligibility after failing the D/E rates or EP measure, but that does
not mean that a subsequent loss of eligibility is certain. The
institution could take swift and appropriate action that would enable
the program to pass the GE metrics in subsequent years, and the
Department would encourage that outcome. Even if a program loses
eligibility due to a subsequent failure of the relevant GE metric, it
would be inaccurate to characterize that loss of eligibility as a
choice on the part of the Department. As with other metrics that can
result in the loss of title IV, HEA eligibility, such as
[[Page 70081]]
failure to achieve acceptable cohort default rates under subpart N of
part 668 or failure to comply with 90-10 requirements at Sec. 668.28,
the loss of eligibility is a predictable and consistent consequence
reflecting the institution's failure to meet an established standard,
not a matter of the Department's discretion.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed support for retaining the
warnings provision to require information about the academic and
financial options to continue education at the same institution;
whether the institution would refund tuition and fees; and whether
students can transfer credits earned to another institution through
articulation agreements or a teach-out.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for their support and will
retain these components of the student warnings for GE programs.
Changes: None.
Burden of Acknowledgments and Warnings
Comments: A few commenters opined that the proposed requirement in
the financial value transparency framework for students to acknowledge
having seen information about a high-debt-burden program prior to
disbursement of title IV, HEA funds resembles the Department's earlier
efforts with the Annual Student Loan Acknowledgment (ASLA). These
commenters suggested that, similar to the ASLA, the proposed
acknowledgment requirements should be optional rather than required
because of the burden to students and potential delays to title IV, HEA
disbursements.
Discussion: The Department disagrees with this suggestion because
the ASLA requirements serve a different purpose than the acknowledgment
requirements of this rule. The Annual Student Loan Acknowledgment
provides students an annual reminder of their individually accrued
student debt amounts and expected repayment obligations, to enhance
debt awareness and encourage students to limit borrowing. The
acknowledgment requirements in the rule are targeted towards
prospective students considering enrollment in a program that does not
lead to an undergraduate degree that leaves students with a high debt-
burden (Sec. 668.407), and current and prospective students of a GE
program at risk of a loss of title IV, HEA eligibility (Sec. 668.605)
because of failing either the EP or D/E measures. These acknowledgment
requirements are intended to provide timely information to assist
students in making informed decisions about whether to enroll or
continue in the program and is targeted only to students enrolled or
considering enrollment in programs where the Department has identified
concerns with financial value. We believe that making this
acknowledgment optional would result in students not viewing and
benefiting from the information.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters opined that requirements that
institutions directly deliver GE warnings to students, and that
students acknowledge having seen the information, would be inefficient
and burdensome to students and institutions.
Discussion: While we are sensitive to the fiscal and logistical
needs of institutions, we maintain that any burden on institutions to
meet the warning and acknowledgment requirements is outweighed by the
benefits of the debt and earnings outcomes information to students in
making better informed enrollment and borrowing decisions. The
Department will clearly notify institutions about any programs for
which warnings or acknowledgments will be required. Although, as noted
above, we offer institutions flexibility to tailor communications about
acknowledgment requirements in a manner that best fits the needs of
their students, the required text for warning notices for GE programs
will be provided to institutions. We therefore expect that the burden
to institutions in administering the warning and acknowledgment
requirements to be manageable.
Changes: None.
Comments: Another commenter noted that for non-GE programs, it
would be difficult to identify which students require acknowledgments,
as students may initially be in an undeclared major, may enroll in
multiple majors, or may change majors mid-term or mid-year.
Discussion: We acknowledge that it may seem unclear whether
acknowledgment requirements would apply in the situations noted by the
commenter. For this reason, as discussed above, we will limit the
acknowledgment requirements of Sec. 668.407 to eligible programs that
do not lead to an undergraduate degree. We believe this change will
better target the acknowledgment requirements to programs to which
students tend to directly apply, and should eliminate most of the
situations identified by the commenter including for undeclared majors,
as an undeclared major would be within the undergraduate degree program
for which an acknowledgment would not be required. Our analysis shows
that high-debt-burden programs are relatively rare among certificate
programs and graduate degree programs outside the proprietary sector,
so we believe the impacts of this change on students will be minimal.
To be clear the warnings and acknowledgment requirements in Sec.
668.605 apply to all GE programs. Based on the Department's data and
experience, it is extremely rare for students to enter such programs
without a declared program major.
Students enrolled in multiple majors that do not lead to an
undergraduate degree will complete acknowledgments for each program for
which acknowledgment requirements would otherwise apply. For changes of
program, acknowledgment requirements will begin when the student
changes to a program for which acknowledgments are required. The
Department intends to provide further sub-regulatory guidance and
training prior to the effective date of the acknowledgment
requirements.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter indicated that it would be burdensome and
resource-intensive to require institutions to affirmatively provide
students with transfer information in GE warnings and suggested that
the Department instead only require institutions to provide a person
for students to contact for questions about transfer eligibility.
Discussion: We do not agree that the requirement to provide
transfer-related information to students in GE warnings is overly
burdensome. The GE warning provisions generally require institutions to
notify students about the transferability of credit to other programs
offered by that institution. These warning provisions do not broadly
require institutions to confirm the transferability of credit to other
institutions, except in the case of an established articulation
agreement or teach-out plan. We believe it is reasonable to expect an
institution to be well aware of its own policies regarding transfers of
credit amongst its own programs, and to communicate that information to
students when required in a GE warning. It is equally reasonable to
expect an institution to understand and communicate details about the
transferability of credit in an established articulation or teach-out
plan to which the institution is a party. With regard to the
commenter's suggestion that the Department instead only require an
institution to provide access to a person who students may contact with
questions about transfer eligibility, we expect that institutions would
already provide access to such a resource under the administrative
capability requirements at Sec. 668.16(h), as such
[[Page 70082]]
information would comprise conditions that may alter the student's aid
package.
Changes: None.
Timing of Warnings
Comments: One commenter claimed that the requirement to provide
warnings to prospective GE students who have contacted or been
contacted by an institution on a single occasion is premature, as there
is no indication that a prospective student is seriously considering
enrolling in the program at such an early point. Instead, this
commenter suggested that the Department change the proposed requirement
so that, instead of requiring warnings at the first contact about the
program, warnings would be provided before the student signs an
enrollment agreement or makes a financial commitment to the
institution, consistent with the timing of the requirement at proposed
Sec. 668.43(d)(3) to provide information about the Department's
program information website. This commenter also argued that a
requirement to provide warnings any time before the GE program loses
eligibility is premature, because changes made by the institution to
the program or changes in external forces such as the labor market
could cause the program to pass the D/E rates and EP measure and remain
eligible.
Discussion: We do not agree that a requirement for an institution
to provide a GE warning to prospective students who have initially
contacted or been contacted by an institution is premature, nor do we
agree that it would be more appropriate to provide the GE warning
before the student signs an enrollment agreement or makes a financial
commitment to the institution. We believe it is important that
prospective students have this critical program information early in
the decision-making process, when students may be comparing many
institutions and programs, so that students have the benefit of
understanding the debt and earnings risks of the GE program before
investing significant time into investigating it.
Additionally, we disagree that a requirement to provide GE warnings
any time before the GE program loses eligibility is premature. A GE
program that has failed the D/E rates or EP measure is at risk for loss
of title IV, HEA eligibility. Such a loss of eligibility would
significantly impact students, who may be unable to complete their
program of study and may need to transfer to another program or
institution. Given the seriousness of these consequences to students,
we believe it is imperative that students are alerted without delay and
provided information to better inform their decision making.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended that we should extend the
deadline to provide warnings to enrolled students from 30 to 60 days
after the date of the notice of determination, to provide institutions
the time necessary to identify the appropriate students and accurately
issue the warnings, while still allowing institutions to perform other
necessary functions.
Discussion: We believe that 30 days from the date the Department
issues a notice of determination that a GE program has failed the D/E
rates or EP measure is a reasonable period of time for institutions to
identify and distribute warnings to students enrolled in that GE
program. We note that institutions should generally be well aware of
which students are enrolled in each of the institution's programs. The
Department further notes that the administrative capability regulations
at Sec. 668.16(b)(2) require an institution to use an adequate number
of qualified staff to administer the title IV, HEA programs. The
Department considers those requirements to include the distribution of
required GE warnings to students. Moreover, Sec. 668.16(b)(3) requires
institutions to have a system in place to communicate to the financial
aid administrator all information maintained by any institutional
office that impacts students' title IV, HEA eligibility, including
information about which students are enrolled in a particular program
of study.
Changes: None.
Cooling-Off Period After Warnings
Comments: One commenter expressed support for the three-day
cooling-off period after institutions deliver GE warnings to students,
as prescribed in Sec. 668.407(f)(2). The commenter encouraged the
Department to consider additional guidance concerning the type of
communication allowed between the institution and the student during
the cooling-off period, such as stipulating that only students can
initiate contact with the institution or communication from the
institution may only occur via email.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for their support, and we
appreciate the suggestion to provide additional guidance on allowable
types of communication during the cooling-off period. Although we do
not believe that this level of specificity is required in the
regulation, we expect to provide additional sub-regulatory guidance and
training prior to the effective date of the rule.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter supported the Department's decision not to
consider a student acknowledgment or GE warning as evidence against a
borrower's loan discharge application, but expressed concern that
institutions could exploit the warnings and acknowledgment requirements
to try to insulate themselves from legal liability for misconduct and
recommended that the Department include language providing that neither
the warnings nor the acknowledgments can be used by an institution as a
defense to deceptive practices claims brought by students or government
agencies in administrative or judicial proceedings.
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenter for their support.
While we share the commenter's concern, we are not changing the
regulatory language because we believe that categorically limiting the
defenses institutions can raise in the types of litigation noted by the
commenter would extend beyond the scope of the Department's authority.
Changes: None.
Alternative Languages for Warnings
Comments: Several commenters opined that the requirement in Sec.
668.605(d) to deliver warnings in alternative languages is overly
vague, would be burdensome for institutions to administer, and could
result in discrimination claims. Commenters suggested that the
Department produce a template format and content that can be used
unilaterally for consistency across institutions; specify the minimum
required languages for translation; only require that warnings be
available in English and in any other language in which the program
offers instruction; or allow the warning to be posted as a disclaimer
on admissions and enrollment materials.
Discussion: The Department disagrees that that the requirement to
deliver GE warnings in alternative languages is overly vague,
burdensome, or would result in discrimination claims. The Department
expects an institution to be reasonably aware if it admits and enrolls
students with limited proficiency in English and expects institutions
to provide required GE warnings in a language relevant to the student.
Translation tools and services are available to institutions to aid
them in meeting this requirement. We believe that a warning template
would be of limited use given the variety of potential information
related to transferability of credit, written arrangements, and teach-
[[Page 70083]]
outs, and we further note that the regulation provides a helpful
framework from which to craft the relevant GE warning language.
Specifying the particular languages required for translation or only
requiring that GE warnings be available in English and in the languages
in which the program offers instruction would exclude some students
from benefiting from content of the GE warnings.
The Department disagrees with the suggestion to allow the GE
warning to merely be posted as a general disclaimer on admissions and
enrollment materials. We want students to view any required GE warnings
and have the opportunity to act upon the information. The timing and
manner of information delivery can greatly affect whether the
information is received and understood, such that audiences may use the
information in their decisions. We believe the GE warning must be
distributed directly to students, not provided as a general disclaimer.
As discussed further below, the information at issue is critical for
students when a GE program is at risk of losing eligibility to
participate in title IV, HEA.
Changes: None.
The First Amendment and Warnings
Comments: A few commenters argued that a required warning under
Sec. 668.605 of the GE accountability framework, particularly a
warning rule using prescribed language, may constitute compelled speech
that may violate an institution's constitutional rights under the First
Amendment. A few such commenters noted that the First Amendment extends
to people and corporations alike, covers all types of lawful speech
including factual disclosures, and protects the right to refrain from
speaking at all. One commenter further opined that to survive legal
scrutiny, a regulation must be narrowly tailored to promote a
compelling government interest and suggested that the Department
already has a narrowly tailored solution in the College Scorecard,
which includes average student debt and average earnings. Another
commenter posited that the warning provisions would require
institutions to parrot the Department's determination of the program's
value without regard for the reliability of the underlying data or the
non-pecuniary value of the program to students.
Discussion: The Department disagrees. The relevant provisions of
the GE program accountability framework will provide students with a
straightforward, purely factual, and uncontroversial warning when there
is a serious risk that title IV, HEA aid will not be available at a
given GE program. These provisions will require institutions that
operate these at-risk GE programs to deliver a one-time warning to
students with whom they already have a relationship, through enrollment
or outreach and contact as prospective students.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ In Sec. 668.2 of these rules, ``prospective student'' is
defined as an individual who has contacted an eligible institution
for the purpose of requesting information about enrolling in a
program or who has been contacted directly by the institution or by
a third party on behalf of the institution about enrolling in a
program. And ``student'' is defined, for the purposes of subparts Q
and S and of Sec. 668.43(d), as an individual who received title
IV, HEA program funds for enrolling in the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, the unavailability of title IV, HEA assistance
is an undeniably serious consequence for students who are enrolled in
or considering whether to enroll in a GE program. In addition, the
Department has an overwhelming interest in enabling informed student
decisions before government resources are directed toward at-risk
programs. And the communicative burden on institutions will be minor at
worst, given that they will remain free to deliver their own messages
to students. A responsible institution would strive to warn students of
the potential loss of eligibility in these circumstances, and the rule
aims to require participating institutions to act responsibly. The GE
warning rule is an entirely reasonable and constitutional requirement
for institutions that benefit from title IV, HEA aid to students. Such
rules are consistent with the First Amendment's guarantee of the
freedom of speech.
The justifications for a warning are especially strong in these
circumstances--situations involving the need to inform students about
the risk to student aid before Federal funds are used in programs that
are supposed to train and prepare students for gainful employment in a
recognized occupation or profession--not education of all kinds. In
commercial speech cases, courts have asked whether a regulation
directly advances a significant government interest and is a reasonable
fit between means and ends.\181\ Courts also have recognized broader
government authority to require disclosure of accurate information
about services and products,\182\ allowing for the preservation of
various consumer protection laws. Furthermore, the GE warning rule
involves participants in Federal funding programs, rather than the
regulation of private parties who are not seeking government
support.\183\ Whatever the applicable test, the GE warning rule will
satisfy it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ See, for example, Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v.
Public Serv. Comm'n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557, 564 (1980); Bd. of
Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 480 (1989)
(stating that the test involves reasonable fit).
\182\ See, for example, Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary
Couns. of Supreme Ct. of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 651 (1985) (testing
advertiser disclosure requirements for a reasonable relationship to
a governmental interest in preventing deception, and for whether the
requirements are unduly burdensome to speech); Milavetz, Gallop &
Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, 559 U.S. 229, 259-53 (2010)
(following Zauderer); Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. Azar, 983 F.3d 528, 540-42
(D.C. Cir. 2020) (same). Other First Amendment cases regarding
disclosures are collected in note 165, and we further discuss the
freedom of speech in that discussion of the Department's program
information website.
\183\ See generally United States v. American Library Ass'n, 539
U.S. 194 (2003) (addressing Federal assistance for internet access
and a condition on assistance involving internet filters); United
States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 606 (1995) (recognizing that
private parties may voluntarily agree to assume an enforceable duty
not to disclose information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's interests in informed student decisions and
protection of tax-supported government resources are obviously
important, and warnings will directly advance those interests. The rule
applies to institutions that operate at-risk GE programs and that have
established relationships with their enrolled students, and that have
contact with prospective students. The Department understands the
obvious threat to students and taxpayers when the former enroll in
programs that turn out losing eligibility under title IV, HEA. But the
Department does not have the advantages of institutions in their
ability to deliver necessary warnings to both enrolled and prospective
students, who are in the process of making decisions about higher
education. And institutions should understand why students need to
obtain the information at issue. Given the stakes for students and
taxpayers, the College Scorecard does not provide a direct warning to
students and, therefore, is not an adequate substitute for warnings
from participating institutions that their GE programs are at risk.
In addition, the GE warning rule is carefully tailored to the
Department's interests, while the burden on participating institutions'
speech will be minimal. As described in Sec. 668.605(a) and (b), the
warning is a one-time obligation, with a narrow exception for students
who seek to enroll 12 months after a warning. Furthermore, Sec.
668.605(e) and (f) allows institution to choose among more than one
method of delivering the warning, including an email or other
electronic means. It is true that, when a warning is delivered in a
written form, Sec. 668.605(e) and (f)
[[Page 70084]]
indicates that the warning must be separate from other communications
from the institution. That provision advances the Department's
interests in an effectively communicated warning and does not prohibit
other messages from the institution such as a separate email or
electronic communication.\184\ In this rule, moreover, the Department
chose not to ask institutions to deliver continuous warnings such as by
posting messages on their own websites or incorporating warnings into
their promotional materials. In our judgment, the warning rule in Sec.
668.605 is necessary and adequate based on the Department's experience
and available information. As a consequence, the burden on institutions
will be minimized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ See CTIA--The Wireless Ass'n v. City of Berkeley, 928 F.3d
832, 849 (9th Cir. 2019) (observing that the regulation at issue
permitted retailers to add information if the information was
distinct).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other features of this GE warning rule likewise moderate any burden
on participating institutions' preferred messages. In Sec. 668.605(c),
the Department selected carefully a list of factual, objective, and
commonsense items to include in warnings to students when their GE
programs are at risk: notification that the GE program has not passed
the Department's standards, and that the program could lose access to
Federal grants and loans when the next round of results are available;
a link to the Department's program information website along with
notification that the student must acknowledge having viewed the
warning through the Department's website before disbursement of title
IV, HEA funds; and, in the event that the program does lose eligibility
to participate in the title IV, HEA programs, a description of options
within the institution, an indication of what the institution plans to
do regarding teaching and refunds, and an explanation of whether
students may transfer credits to other institutions. Each of these
items is independently valuable. Notably, however, the rules do not
require participating institutions to adopt the Department's view on
program value, as one commenter feared.
Certain details for warnings will be specified in a future notice
in the Federal Register, consistent with the terms of Sec. 668.605.
But the rule clearly does not require any script that would compel any
participating institution to misrepresent its views about what is a
high-value program, low-value program, or any other topic. The
Department does want students to be warned effectively and accurately
but respects the legitimate interests of participating institutions to
maintain their own views and to communicate those views. We will avoid
language in the GE warnings that may be unduly controversial,
misleading, or distracting.\185\ As we discuss elsewhere in this
document, institutions can correct errors in certain calculations to
increase the accuracy of the outcome measures. That process is part of
the Department's effort to make available factual information about
programs that is readily comparable and easily understood by students
and the general public. At the same time, institutions will remain free
to hold and express their own views on which if any program metrics are
best through their own channels of communication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ Contrast the warning that was criticized in a dictum in
Ass'n of Priv. Colleges & Universities v. Duncan, 870 F. Supp. 2d
133, 154 n.7 (D.D.C. 2012), which expressed concern about a
``statement that every student in a program `should expect to have
difficulty repaying his or her student loans.' '' This rule does not
require such a message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not the first instance in which regulations have required
individual, direct communication by institutions with consumers about
Federal aid. Apart from the 2014 Prior Rule, section 454(a)(2) of the
HEA \186\ authorizes the Department to require institutions to make
disclosures of information about Direct Loans, and Direct Loan
regulations require detailed explanations of terms and conditions that
apply to borrowing and repaying Direct Loans. The institution must
provide this information in loan counseling given to every new Direct
Loan borrower in an in-person entrance counseling session, on a
separate form that must be signed and returned to the institution by
the borrower, or by online or interactive electronic delivery with the
borrower acknowledging receipt of the message.\187\ Like the GE warning
rule adopted here, under the loan counseling rules, institutions must
provide warnings directly to the affected consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ 20 U.S.C. 1087d(a)(2).
\187\ 34 CFR 685.304(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although we thoroughly considered the commenters' concerns
regarding the First Amendment, we are convinced that the final
regulations are constitutional. Additionally, we took into account a
range of concerns expressed by commenters regarding disclosures and
warnings, along with the Government interests in providing students an
effective warning regarding a program's performance and eligibility
status. Our judgment, in sum, is that the GE warning rule is both sound
policy and constitutional.
Finally, the Department disagrees with a commenter's suggestion
that the final rules are impermissible because any regulation of GE
programs is content-based and subject to strict judicial scrutiny. The
commenter's source of concern appears to be the GE statutes that create
the distinctions between types of institutions and programs that
prepare students for gainful employment. Regardless, we reiterate that
the D/E rates and EP metrics focus on completer outcomes rather than
program curriculum. We also observe that institutions have the option
of not participating in title IV, HEA student aid programs. Title IV
offers eligible institutions the option to participate in student aid
programs. It does not compel institutions to prefer one curriculum over
another.
Changes: None.
Students Switching Programs
Comments: A few commenters recommended that the Department exempt
from the acknowledgment requirements in Sec. 668.407 all students who
transfer from one program to another within an institution or who have
not declared a major. For undeclared majors, a few commenters suggested
that the acknowledgment requirement apply once the student selects a
major.
A few other commenters suggested instead that the Department
address program transfers and undeclared majors by listing all of a
school's programs on the program information website, with failing
programs in the credential level of the student at the top of the list,
and clearly marking all programs as passing or failing, or noting where
no information is available. One commenter added that we could use the
College Scorecard for this purpose, provided it included the relevant
information.
Discussion: As noted above, the student acknowledgment requirements
in Sec. 668.407 are aimed at providing information to prospective
students before they enter into enrollment agreements with an
institution. While we agree with commenters' arguments that this
information would be valuable to already enrolled students who are
considering changing their major, we do not believe the benefit of
requiring acknowledgments to such students would outweigh the
administrative burden of requiring students to provide such information
prior to switching or declaring majors. Students' educational pathways
are complex, and they may form their preferences about an ultimate
field of study course-by-course or class-by-class as they progress.
There may
[[Page 70085]]
therefore be no obvious time to trigger a requirement that they view
the program information website, and students may effectively have
already made their decisions prior to being prompted to view the
information. Accordingly, the Department believes it is best to rely on
publicizing the availability of the information to all students to
increase the odds students will have the relevant information available
to them to inform choices in this situation. In this connection, we may
consider listing links to information about all of a school's programs
on the Department's program information website, with clear
designations of each program's status under the financial value
transparency metrics.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter urged the Department to ensure that
transfer students from one institution to another acknowledge the
information before receiving Federal aid for the receiving program.
Discussion: As noted above, transfer students to an institution are
considered prospective students and so the acknowledgment requirements
in Sec. 668.407 apply.
Changes: None.
Impact on Loan Discharges
Comments: A few commenters recommended that we omit proposed
Sec. Sec. 668.407(d) and 668.605(h), which provide that the Department
will not consider a student acknowledgment or GE warning as evidence
against a borrower's loan discharge application. These commenters also
opined that the proposed acknowledgment and warning provisions are
underly nuanced and that the Department could not rule out in all cases
the possibility that a warning or acknowledgment would be irrelevant.
Additionally, the commenters noted that a final rule adopted by the
Department in 2022 \188\ contained a provision requiring the Department
to use all information in its possession when evaluating borrower
defense claims. The commenters contended we should consider a warning
or acknowledgment to constitute other relevant information about which
the Department is aware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ 87 FR 65904 (Nov. 1, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: The Department disagrees with the suggestion to omit
Sec. Sec. 668.407(d) and 668.605(h). Under the borrower defense
provisions at Sec. 685.401(b), actionable circumstances for a borrower
defense claim include a substantial misrepresentation; a substantial
omission of fact; an institution's failure to perform its contractual
obligations to the student; aggressive and deceptive recruitment; or a
State or Federal judgment against the institution, including an
institution's termination or denial of recertification by the
Department. The student acknowledgments provided under the financial
value transparency framework regarding D/E rates, as well as the
warnings and acknowledgments under the GE program accountability
framework regarding D/E rates and the EP measure, pertain specifically
to a program's outcomes that are provided for students and their
family. The course of dealings and information shared between an
institution and its students remain the focus of whether a student
qualifies for a borrower defense discharge. The borrower defense
regulations address the consideration of the relevant facts related to
the borrower defense claim. A student's acknowledgment of a program's
failing D/E rates would be one consideration but would not be
dispositive. We anticipate that in acknowledging having viewed the
financial value information on the Department's website, borrowers will
consider this information in the context of other information they may
receive, including from institutions.
Changes: We have revised Sec. Sec. 668.407(d) and 668.605(h) to
specify that the provision of an acknowledgement or warning will not be
considered ``dispositive'' evidence in any borrower defense claim.
Comments: One commenter supported the Department's decision not to
consider a student acknowledgment or GE warning as evidence against a
borrower's loan discharge application, but expressed concern that
institutions could exploit the warnings and acknowledgment requirements
to try to insulate themselves from legal liability for misconduct and
recommended that the Department include language providing that neither
the warnings nor the acknowledgments can be used by an institution as a
defense to deceptive practices claims brought by students or government
agencies in administrative or judicial proceedings.
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenter for their support.
While we share the commenter's concern, we are not changing the
regulatory language because we believe that categorically limiting the
defenses institutions can raise in the types of litigation noted by the
commenter would extend beyond the scope of the Department's authority.
Changes: None.
Certification Requirements for GE Programs--Sec. 668.604
Comments: One commenter expressed concern that the timing of the
requirement to certify GE programs may be overly burdensome for
institutions, given the projected timing for institutional reporting
and notification of D/E rates and EP measures. This commenter requested
that the Department extend the certification deadline beyond December
31, 2024, to provide a more generous transition period.
Discussion: We do not anticipate the initial transitional
certification requirements for GE programs to be particularly
burdensome. Even institutions with many GE programs would generally
submit a single transitional certification, likely through
eligcert.ed.gov or its successor system. While some analysis is
required on the part of institutions to know whether each GE program
meets any applicable State licensure or accreditation requirements, the
Department notes that, even in the absence of the GE certification
requirements, institutions should be knowledgeable about the programs
they offer. We reasonably expect institutions to keep their programs
current and compliant with State and accrediting agency policies and
requirements.
The December 31, 2024, deadline for GE program certification is
entirely reasonable, especially given our decision to extend the
transitional data reporting option to GE programs, as discussed under
``Reporting'' above, which already provides a more generous transition
period.
Changes: None.
Ineligible GE Programs
Impact of Ineligibility
Comments: Two commenters voiced concern that a program's loss of
eligibility to participate in the title IV, HEA programs will force
many students to withdraw. According to these commenters, some students
may abandon their education, others may struggle to find another
institution willing to accept them, and others may have to retake some
of their classes or restart their clinicals, thereby devaluing the
taxpayer's investment in the student's education.
Another commenter discussed the lesser options for education in
their field if their institution were to close, commenting that
community colleges offer less in-depth programs in their field of
study, located in areas with more limited housing options.
[[Page 70086]]
Discussion: As we illustrate in the RIA, most students in programs
projected to fail the accountability metrics have alternatives with
better student outcomes available to them. In most cases, then, where
programs lose eligibility, we expect most students to reenroll in
programs that result in higher earnings, less debt, or both. We
acknowledge that a program's ineligibility may present some obstacles
to some students' ability to complete their programs, but believe that
these obstacles do not justify continuing to direct further taxpayer
funds to programs that fail to meet standards. By providing prompt
notice and an overview of options in student warnings, the GE framework
will give students options to take action before sinking too much of
their time, efforts, funds, and limited title IV, HEA aid into programs
that do not lead to adequate student outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters raised concerns about how the proposed
rules would have disproportionate effects on cosmetology and massage
therapy schools. Commenters said the rules would lead to the widespread
closure of these schools. Commenters noted that many of these schools
are also small businesses. Commenters further opined that these
negative effects would be felt not just by supposedly bad cosmetology
schools.
Commenters then proceeded to raise concerns about multiple follow-
on negative effects from these closures. They raised the possibility of
negative effects on students, including reduced opportunities for
women, people of color, immigrants, persons with disabilities, and
other groups that are traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary
education. Commenters also raised concerns about students losing access
to Federal aid in the middle of programs, which would discourage
continued enrollment.
Commenters also argued that community colleges and high schools
would not be able to accommodate the influx of students interested in
attending cosmetology programs after many private cosmetology schools
closed. They also claimed schools would not be able to meet the demand
for massage therapists.
Commenters further cited the effects of closure on unemployment and
local communities. Commenters particularly emphasized the effects of
businesses hiring graduates of programs, and the inability to fill in-
demand jobs if programs and institutions close. They also said
unemployment would increase from students who would otherwise have
found jobs after attending cosmetology schools. Others claimed
thousands of employees from these schools would lose their jobs.
Commenters also expressed concern that closures would have negative
effects on health, safety, and sanitary conditions as more services
would be provided in homes and in unlicensed or uninspected facilities.
Discussion: We disagree with the commenters about the likelihood
that closures would be widespread, as well as the negative effects that
would come from any closures that might occur.
Regarding the extent of closures, commenters did not consider the
large numbers of students attending cosmetology schools but not
receiving Federal aid under title IV, HEA, as well as the significant
number of cosmetology schools that do not participate in title IV at
all. For example, across all institutions that participate in the title
IV, HEA programs that award cosmetology certificate programs, we
estimate the average institution awarded about 38 percent of its
credentials to students who did not receive any Federal aid.\189\
Moreover, a review of licensure examination results from California
\190\ suggests that only about one-third of schools with students
taking the cosmetology licensure exam participate in the title IV, HEA
programs. In a similar study cited in the RIA, Cellini and Onwukwe find
the analogous share in Texas is about 14 percent.\191\ The same data
used in these studies, along with more rigorous academic studies,\192\
suggest that loss of title IV, HEA eligibility among cosmetology
schools results in schools adjusting their tuition downward (suggesting
that students may not face higher costs of attendance despite losing
access to title IV aid), and that their graduates still pass licensure
exams at similar rates. These findings suggest that commenters'
assertions that the loss of Federal aid eligibility would automatically
lead to closure and a reduction of opportunities for students may not
be correct. There is a difference between an institution losing access
to title IV, HEA funds and closing--a distinction that is particularly
evident in the cosmetology space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ This analysis compares data on the total number of awards
granted during 2016 and 2017 reported by institutions in the
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), which covers
both federally aided students and not-federally aided students to
the number of graduates in such programs reported to the National
Student Loan Data System--covering only federally aided students.
\190\ California makes these data available at this website:
https://www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/schools/schls_rslts.shtml.
\191\ Cellini, S.R. & Onwukwe, B. (2022). Cosmetology Schools
Everywhere. Most Cosmetology Schools Exist Outside of the Federal
Student Aid System. Postsecondary Equity & Economics Research
Project working paper, August 2022.
\192\ See, for example, Cellini, S.R., & Goldin, C. (2014). Does
Federal student aid raise tuition? New evidence on for-profit
colleges. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(4), 174-206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also emphasize that the Federal financial aid programs are
entitlements for students, not institutions of higher education. The GE
accountability framework is designed to protect both Federal investment
and student investment in programs of higher education. Students
pursuing higher education are not just investing taxpayer and personal
funds to attend a GE program, but are also incurring opportunity costs.
The GE eligibility rules that we adopt here do not assess whether a
program or a school is in some general sense ``good'' or ``bad,'' which
are labels the commenters did not define. More concretely, a student
directing their limited title IV, HEA aid to a GE program that does not
prepare them for gainful employment in a recognized occupation has lost
the opportunity to use those funds to attend a different educational
program that would better serve their goals. The D/E rates and earnings
premium measures provide objective and evidence-based metrics to direct
Federal funds to programs that do not saddle students with more debt
than they can afford or leave them with earnings prospects no better
than they would have had with only a high school diploma.
We also disagree with the arguments from commenters about the
effects of closures. First, as we note above, there is a possibility of
enrollment moving into programs that are still eligible for title IV,
HEA funds or those that operate solely on the private market. Second,
commenters did not consider the potential responses from programs that
do pass the GE program accountability framework. For instance, a
passing program may choose to expand its enrollment and meet any excess
demand. Students may also choose to enroll in different types of
programs, which are likely to provide them better economic benefits
since passing programs generally have a combination of higher earnings
and lower debt. The Department thus believes commenters overstate the
potential loss of postsecondary opportunities.
We also disagree with comments about the negative effects of
closures on particular groups of students, such as women and students
of color. The Department has already provided an extensive discussion
of the effects of these rules on women and students of
[[Page 70087]]
color, which can be found in the ``Demographics and Outcomes'' section
of this final rule. Many of the other categories identified by
commenters are not ones where there is any centralized data collection
to identify them, such that there is no analysis of these populations
that could be conducted. But we do not see a persuasive reason why the
analysis conducted on women and students of color would not capture the
largest demographic groups enrolling in cosmetology, massage therapy,
and other beauty school programs. Given that cosmetology schools
represent one of the largest areas of student enrollment in GE
programs, we believe that analysis properly captures the consideration
of the effects on these groups of students at beauty schools.
We also disagree with commenters' arguments about the effects of
closure on local communities and businesses. The Department does not
believe that a shortage of programs of study within a field is adequate
justification for directing title IV, HEA funds to programs that do not
lead to adequate student outcomes. If there is a shortage of eligible
programs in a high-demand field, this provides an opening for
institutions to expand the capacity of existing high-quality programs
or to create new high-quality programs to meet that need. Moreover,
employers also have tools available to them if they have jobs they
cannot fill, such as increasing wages and benefits. Given that the
beauty industry is predicated on charging clients for their services,
they could also choose to either reduce their profit margins or pass
some of these increased costs on to their clientele. We also reiterate
that commenters have not considered the presence of a significant
number of schools in these areas that do not participate in the title
IV, HEA programs.
Finally, regarding concerns about the effects of the rules on
health and safety, we note that cosmetologist licensure and facility
inspection are areas regulated and enforced at the State and local
levels, not at the Federal level. The Department trusts the appropriate
State and local entities to maintain appropriate standards for health
and safety within their jurisdiction.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters mentioned the potential impact of school
closures contributing to a shortage of practicing veterinarians and the
competitive nature of veterinary school seats, contending that the loss
of program eligibility would reduce the number of future veterinarians.
Other commenters suggested that the D/E metric would result in the
closure of numerous Doctor of Veterinary Medicine programs.
Discussion: While a determination of ineligibility for title IV,
HEA aid may lead to closure of programs in fields of high demand that
do not produce adequate student outcomes, we believe that this does not
justify continuing to steer students and funds to programs with
inadequate student outcomes. It is also possible that the need for
additional training opportunities in a particular field may lead to the
establishment of new programs or the expansion of existing programs
that lead to better student outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters raised concerns about how the GE
accountability framework and program ineligibility stemming from it
could create challenges for businesses trying to hire in the allied
health, business, and nursing spaces.
Discussion: We disagree with the commenters. Regarding nursing and
business, we do not see evidence of high rates of ineligibility. As
shown in Table 4.18, these two programs have the smallest number of
students in failing programs out of all the programs with the largest
number of failures. But for these two areas as well as allied health,
we do not think a shortage of programs of study within a field is
adequate justification for directing title IV, HEA funds to programs
that do not lead to adequate student outcomes. If there is a shortage
of programs and excess demand by employers, then institutions would
have an incentive to expand the capacity of passing programs or
employers would need to raise wages. Either solution could help expand
the number of offerings to what is needed.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated that cosmetology licensure
requirements provide vital consumer protection and make any loss of
funding to cosmetology programs unnecessary.
Discussion: The commenter conflates the protection clients of
cosmetology program graduates receive from licensure requirements with
the protection the Department seeks to establish for students
themselves under the GE accountability framework. These are not
equivalent and are not even protections for the same populations. The
Department believes that both provide important protections.
Changes: None.
Alternatives to Ineligibility
Comments: One commenter suggested that title IV, HEA eligibility
should be grandfathered for students who were already enrolled in a
program at the time of its first fail rating. Two other commenters
similarly suggested allowing students already enrolled in a program
losing eligibility for title IV, HEA aid to continue receiving aid
through completion of the program if they decided to continue with full
knowledge that the program is failing. Many commenters voiced a belief
that students already enrolled in a program that loses eligibility
should be able to choose to continue in the program knowing the
program's failing rates and continue to access Pell funds to complete
the program since loans come with negative consequences if default
occurs, while Pell Grants come without repayment obligations. One
commenter suggested allowing students to continue to borrow title IV,
HEA loans for programs that would lose eligibility, adjusting loan
limits for those programs downward to amounts that would bring D/E
rates to within amounts that would pass.
Discussion: More harm can come to students from continuing in a
failing program than merely accruing additional loan debt. Students are
limited in the amount of time for which they can receive Pell Grants.
Continuing in a failing program and receiving a Pell Grant would
exhaust some of their eligibility. Continuing in a program that
produces inadequate student outcomes will also consume student time and
effort. This invested time comes with more readily apparent costs, such
as increased costs for childcare or lost opportunities for paid
employment, but also with the loss of substitutes--with the time
invested in a failing program, the student could have been pursuing a
course of study that would have better advanced their career.
It is also possible that if the institution became ineligible to
participate in the Direct Loan program, but Pell funding continued,
students would merely replace their Federal student loans with private
loans. Continuing in a failing program without Direct Loans would leave
students in a worse position than if we took no action.
It would be mathematically unworkable to lower limits on Direct
Loans to amounts that would cause a failing program to pass D/E rates.
D/E rates are calculated across a student's entire enrollment in a
program and different students may take a different number of years to
complete a program, so annual borrowing could not be precisely
adjusted. Additionally, since students could potentially replace
lowered Direct Loan amounts with private loan debt, keeping their debt
[[Page 70088]]
amount constant, it would be impossible to precisely lower D/E rates by
lowering limits on title IV, HEA borrowing alone.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the GE accountability
metrics be paired with further reporting requirements but not tied to
title IV, HEA eligibility. Another commenter recommended removing all
references to the GE rule in the context of financial responsibility,
administrative capability, and certification procedures, broadening the
GE rule for uniform application across all program types.
Discussion: As further discussed in this document and in the
NPRM,\193\ we believe that for GE programs, further steps beyond
information provisions are necessary and appropriate. The Department
intends to integrate the GE accountability metrics into all relevant
aspects of Federal student aid administration covered by the final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ 88 FR 32342.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Timeframe for Warnings and Ineligibility
Comments: Several commenters suggested extending the timeframe for
loss of title IV, HEA eligibility to failing in three out of any four
consecutive award years for which metrics are calculated, with one of
the commenters positing that allowing an additional year would limit
loss of eligibility to programs truly demonstrating a pattern of poor
performance versus merely experiencing a market shift or other
unforeseen event. This commenter additionally suggested granting waiver
authority to the Secretary for any program training students to be
essential workers, for programs training students to enter professions
experiencing critical national job shortages, or as a result of a
national, State, or local emergency declared by the appropriate
authority. Another commenter similarly suggested changing the provision
for loss of eligibility to three consecutive fails.
Discussion: In the balance between gathering meaningful data and
acting quickly enough to protect students and taxpayers from failing
programs, an unavoidable amount of delay is already added to the rate
and threshold calculation process for the time it takes for the data
used in calculations to become available. The Department believes that
allowing an additional year of failing GE metrics before a program
becomes ineligible for title IV, HEA program participation would add
too much risk for students in failing GE programs. We further note that
the accountability framework already accounts for sudden market shifts
in that a GE program will not lose eligibility based on failing the D/E
rates or EP measure for a single year. Waiving ineligibility for GE
programs designed to train students to be essential workers or to work
in fields experiencing labor shortages could especially fall short of
protecting students--if program graduates do not have sufficient
earnings when the field is at peak demand, those students will be at an
even greater disadvantage if demand goes down.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter mentioned that closures with little notice
to students are already problematic. This commenter voiced concern that
the rule as proposed will cause still more schools to close within two
years.
Discussion: Under the GE accountability framework, institutions are
required to issue warnings when a GE program is at risk of becoming
title IV, HEA ineligible based on the next calculation of D/E rates or
earnings premium measure. This would occur if the GE program had a
failing D/E rate within its last two rate calculations or if the
program failed the earnings threshold within the last two measurements.
We believe these warnings will provide students adequate notice and
information to decide how they wish to proceed.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter opined that if a GE program did not have
metrics calculated for two years, the programmatic eligibility clock
should restart, citing that programs and their students are continually
evolving and that most community college GE programs will be one year
or shorter in length, making a cumulative evaluation period that could
last up to four years not a reasonable period.
Discussion: The Department acknowledges that programs and student
populations may evolve over time at any institution, but this does not
negate the importance of using the best available data to hold programs
accountable for student outcomes.
Changes: None.
Period of Ineligibility and Substantially Similar New Programs
Comments: Several commenters expressed the opinion that an
institution voluntarily discontinuing a program should not be penalized
if it produces failing rates in its final years. Two of the commenters
did not think it made sense to employ the three-year block on title IV,
HEA eligibility for new programs substantially similar to programs
voluntarily discontinued either before or after D/E rates or earnings
premium measures are issued but allow eligibility for re-established
programs that are discontinued before the metrics go into effect. One
of these commenters expressed that they understood the need to prevent
schools from using voluntary discontinuation to evade consequences, but
that they believed the same goals could be achieved by limiting the
block to programs that already had at least one failing accountability
metric. A few commenters expressed the belief that CIP codes sharing
the first four digits varied too greatly to be substantially similar,
citing examples from the allied health fields and the cosmetology and
related personal grooming fields, and that use of the six-digit CIP
level would be sufficient to prevent manipulation. One commenter stated
that this approach is problematic for institutions that provide
specialized instruction in a narrow field such as cosmetology. Another
of these commenters believed that the 3-year period was arbitrary and
that its use in the rule on cohort default rates was not sufficient
justification. Another commenter believed that the rule as proposed
will block an institution from winding down a program based on market
changes and reintroducing an improved version for three years, even if
the newer program is designed to be shorter, less expensive, and more
attractive to employers.
Discussion: As one of the commenters noted, this provision is
designed to prevent institutions from evading consequences for programs
producing inadequate student outcomes by voluntarily discontinuing a
program before it could lose eligibility based on D/E rates or the
earnings premium. Along those same lines, the period of ineligibility
for new programs with substantial similarity would prevent institutions
from bringing back a program that is failing or at risk of failing
under a similar CIP code with few changes. While 6-digit CIP codes
within some 4-digit CIP categories may have some more variation than
others, there are still sufficient common elements to programs within a
4-digit CIP category to raise concerns that an institution with one
failing program within the category should wait and reassess elements
such as program design and market demand before establishing a new
eligible program within the same category. The Department considers
three years to be an appropriate waiting period. The
[[Page 70089]]
Department selected a three-year period of ineligibility because it
most closely aligns with the ineligibility period associated with
failing the Cohort Default Rate, which is the Department's longstanding
primary outcomes-based accountability metric at the institutional
level. Under those requirements, an institution that becomes ineligible
for title IV, HEA support due to high default rates cannot reapply for
approximately three award years.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested not imposing the three-year
period of ineligibility for programs that have lost eligibility and
allowing schools to reintroduce their programs redesigned to meet GE
standards.
Discussion: The Department believes that omitting the period of
ineligibility would provide inadequate protection for students against
a program being quickly re-established with the same elements that led
to its loss of eligibility in the first place. Since it would require
several years of more data before debt and earnings outcomes could be
determined for the ``new'' program, this would subject student futures
to an unacceptable level of risk.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested disregarding any fail rating more
than four years old, providing an illustrative example of how under the
rule as proposed in Sec. 668.602(c) and (e), a program only large
enough to receive rates in certain years could have failing rates in
years one and seven and maintain eligibility (since the older rate
would be disregarded under Sec. 668.602(c) because the program had
four or more consecutive award years without rates), while if the
program had a passing rate in the interval, with failing rates in years
one and seven and a passing rate in year four, it would lose
eligibility for failing in two of the three consecutive years for which
rates were calculated.
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenter for pointing out
the potential for this unintended consequence. The Department agrees
that the situation described by the commenter is undesirable. This
provision of the rule is meant to avoid using measures of program
performance too far in the past to determine program eligibility.
Changes: In response, we have modified this provision in Sec.
668.602(c) and (e) to state that in determining a program's
eligibility, the Secretary will disregard any D/E or EP measure that
was calculated more than five years prior.
Comments: One commenter voiced a concern that loss of title IV, HEA
eligibility for massage therapy programs would have a ripple effect on
the industry, requiring current massage therapists to take the time to
train new entry-level students.
Discussion: The Department best serves students and taxpayers by
regulating the use of title IV, HEA funds so they support students in
attending programs that lead to adequate outcomes. If the occupational
licensure structure in a State or locality permits a training path
outside of institutions of higher education, that is beyond the
Department's jurisdiction.
Changes: None.
Other Concerns Related to Program Ineligibility Under the GE Framework
Comments: One commenter expressed the opinion that it was unfair to
make program eligibility determinations based on data from years
preceding the effective date of the final rule.
Discussion: The HEA requirement that gainful employment programs
prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation
predates any years for which data will be gathered for the GE
accountability framework.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed the opinion that these will be
the strictest debt-to-earnings metrics to date, making it increasingly
difficult for programs to remain eligible.
Discussion: The Department is committed to protecting student and
taxpayer resources with strong accountability metrics and, as noted in
the RIA, we expect that most programs will pass the D/E rates metric.
Changes: None.
Challenges, Hearings, and Appeals
Comments: One commenter supported the Department's proposal in
Sec. 668.603 to provide an opportunity for institutions to appeal a
determination that a program fails the D/E test on the grounds that the
Department made an error in calculating the institution's D/E ratio.
The commenter offered that this provision provides important due
process protections to institutions.
In contrast, many commenters objected to the Department's decision
not to include review, challenge, and appeal opportunities in the
proposed rule that were present in the 2014 Prior Rule, primarily on
the grounds of due process and fairness. These commenters maintained
that the Department cannot reasonably remove the eligibility of a
program, potentially resulting in the closure of an institution, based
on calculations derived from certain data without providing
institutions a mechanism to review or challenge the data and offer
other evidence, as well as appeal D/E and EP outcomes.
Referencing language from the preamble to the notice of proposed
rulemaking for the 2014 Prior Rule, in which the Department stated that
``[t]he proposed regulations are intended to provide institutions, in
the interest of fairness and due process, with an adequate opportunity
to challenge the completion, withdrawal, and repayment rates and median
loan debt determined by the Department,'' \194\ one commenter asserted
that the Department is not adhering to its previously acknowledged
standard of due process. That commenter, as well as others, noted that
the 2014 Prior Rule afforded institutions the opportunity to review and
correct the list of students (with the Secretary determining in
consideration of evidence submitted, whether to accept those
corrections), challenge the accuracy of the loan debt information that
the Secretary used to calculate the median loan debt for the program,
and file an alternate earnings appeal to request recalculation of a
failing or ``zone'' program's most recent final D/E rates using
earnings data obtained from an institutional survey or State-sponsored
data system. These commenters objected that the proposed rule does not
offer those provisions, allowing only for provision of the student list
to institutions (assertedly without the opportunity for review or
correction) and an appeal where the Secretary has initiated a
termination action of program eligibility under subpart G of part 668
(Student Assistance General Provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ 79 FR 16426, 16485 (Mar. 25, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenter who wrote in
support of the appeal provisions in Sec. 668.603. At the same time, we
disagree with the commenters who asserted that the Department must
include the same opportunities for appeals and challenges as those
contained in the 2014 Prior Rule to afford institutions due process or
fairness. We do not believe the appeal procedures urged by the
commenters are required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment or any applicable principle of fairness.
The threshold question for procedural due process purposes is
whether a person has been or will be deprived of a property interest
protected by the U.S. Constitution.\195\ But institutions lack
[[Page 70090]]
such a protected interest in continued eligibility to participate in
Federal student aid programs.\196\ A unilateral expectation of benefits
is insufficient, and institutions are neither promised nor led to
believe that they will receive a continuing stream of Federal support
without change in student aid rules.\197\ In the context of title IV,
HEA and GE programs, institutions and programs must satisfy a number of
requirements for eligibility beyond the GE metrics in this rule,
including standards related to administrative capability and financial
responsibility. Moreover, neither institutions nor programs are direct
beneficiaries of title IV, HEA aid to students. With respect to the GE
accountability metrics, what will be at issue is specific program-level
eligibility for Government support, not whether the institution and the
other educational programs it offers may continue to participate in the
Federal student aid programs. That indirect relationship to the benefit
further weakens claims that institutions have a legitimate entitlement
to continuing support from the Federal Government under title IV,
HEA.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ See Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564,
569 (1972); see also Assoc. of Private Colleges and Universities v.
Duncan, 870 F. Supp. 2d 133, 154 n.7 (D.D.C. 2012) (``Without a
property right in their participation in Title IV programs, schools
cannot press a Fifth Amendment challenge to the regulation of those
programs.'').
\196\ See Ass'n of Accredited Cosmetology Sch. v. Alexander, 979
F.2d 859, 864 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Dumas v. Kipp, 90 F.3d 386, 392 (9th
Cir. 1996); Ass'n of Proprietary Colleges. v. Duncan, 107 F. Supp.
3d 332, 348-52 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (rejecting procedural due process
challenges to the 2014 Prior Rule based on asserted interests in
property and liberty); Ass'n of Priv. Colleges & Universities v.
Duncan, 870 F. Supp. 2d 133, 154 n.7 (D.D.C. 2012) (``Without a
property right in their participation in Title IV programs, schools
cannot press a Fifth Amendment challenge to the regulation of those
programs.'').
\197\ See Ass'n of Accredited Cosmetology Sch. v. Alexander, 979
F.2d at 864 (concluding that ``schools have no `vested right' to
future eligibility to participate'' in the Guaranteed Student Loan
program).
\198\ See Dumas, 90 F.3d at 392.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the final rule's appeal process is fair. The risk of
error is low in the first place because the Department will use quality
data on earnings from a Federal agency combined with other reliable
information, including information supplied by institutions themselves.
We have explained those choices at length in the NPRM and in this
document. The calculations in question, moreover, are not fairly
subject to open-ended debate or significant discretion. Regarding GE
program accountability, the rules for calculating D/E and EP results
specify clear formulas, thereby diminishing the value of additional
procedures. On the flipside, and in view of the Department's experience
with appeals under prior GE rules, we are convinced that adding such
procedures will not improve decisions but will increase delays,
expenditures, and other burdens. The rules will give adequate assurance
of accurate decisions, while serving the Department's important
interests in supporting career training that results in enhanced
earnings and affordable debt.
Although the Department concluded that the alternate earnings
appeals available under the 2014 Prior Rule were not effective, these
rules will provide appeals that are meaningful and manageable. Section
668.603(b) states that if the Secretary terminates a program's
eligibility, the institution may initiate an appeal under subpart G of
this part if it believes the Secretary erred in the calculation of the
program's D/E rates under Sec. 668.403 or the earnings premium measure
under Sec. 668.404. Subpart G of part 668, specifically Sec.
668.86(b), outlines the procedure for institutions to challenge
decisions to limit or terminate a program. These procedures are
designed to provide an opportunity to correct any errors in the
calculation of a program's D/E rates under Sec. 668.403 or the
earnings premium measure under Sec. 668.404. These procedures include
issuance by a designated Department official of notice informing the
institution of the intent to limit or terminate that institution's
participation, through a possible appeal of the initial decision of the
hearing official to the Secretary. In addition, under Sec. 668.405,
institutions will be provided a ``completer list'' of all students who
completed each program during the cohort period and given an
opportunity to correct the information about students on the list.
It is true that, unlike the 2014 Prior Rule, the rules adopted here
will not allow for institution-by-institution challenges to draft D/E
rates based on evidence provided by the institution that loan debt
information used to calculate the median loan debt for a program is
incorrect. However, median loan debt for a program is not a statistic
that the Department creates on its own, but rather is derived from
student enrollment, disbursement, and program data, or other data the
institution is required to report to the Secretary to support its
administration of, or participation in, title IV, HEA. We expect that
institutions will review these data and confirm they are correct at the
time of reporting. Should any reported data contain inaccuracies, the
institution must timely correct that data. The Department provides
ample opportunity for an institution to evaluate the accuracy of its
data through reconciliation and closeout procedures at the end of each
award year. Section 668.405 will require that, in accordance with
procedures established by the Secretary, the institution update or
otherwise correct any reported data no later than 60 days after the end
of an award year. Inasmuch as participating institutions have access in
real time to Department systems through which relevant data are
reported--that is, COD and NSLDS--plus an appropriate period of time to
correct any erroneous data, the presumption of accuracy with respect to
such institution-provided information is fair and reasonable.
Accordingly, these regulations do not establish a protocol for the
publication of draft rates and an institutional challenge to those
rates based on incorrect data being used to calculate median loan debt.
We acknowledge the references to fairness and due process in the
preamble of the Department's 2014 Prior Rule. We remain committed to
making decisions based on sufficiently reliable information that is
relevant to the GE program accountability framework. We disagree,
however, that due process or fairness requires the Department to adopt
precisely the same appeals processes as in 2014, regardless of current
circumstances and other rules that affect the reliability of the
information needed to apply these rules. To the extent that
constitutionally protected interests are implicated when institutions
seek to benefit from government support, we observe that due process
remains a flexible concept that accounts for considerations that
include a relatively low probability of significant error and the
Government's interest in reducing fiscal and administrative
burdens.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\199\ See, for example, Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-
35, 347 (1976); see also Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830, 852
(2018) (reaffirming that due process is flexible).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, institutions with programs that are not
eligible to participate in title IV, HEA as the result of failing GE
rates can appeal under subpart G of part 668 if they believe the
Secretary erred in the calculation of the program's D/E rates under
Sec. 668.403 or the earnings premium measure under Sec. 668.404. We
also note that some commenters mischaracterized these rules in
asserting that the Department will limit institutions to a review of
completer lists without an opportunity to make appropriate corrections.
As previously discussed, Sec. 668.405 will allow institutions to
correct information about students on the list. Median loan debt
challenges also are discussed
[[Page 70091]]
above. Alternate earnings appeals are addressed in a separate
discussion below.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters, within the context of supporting the
reintroduction of alternate earnings appeals, suggested the Department
``cap'' the number of programs at a given institution that can lose
eligibility as a result of failing D/E rates or EP measures. One
commenter broadly suggested a cap for the first year. However,
commenters were not otherwise specific as to how such a cap might be
applied.
Discussion: We are not convinced that a cap on the number of
programs offered by a single institution that can lose eligibility is
an appropriate or logical measure. Failing programs allowed to remain
eligible as the result of such a cap would be no more successful than
those that lost eligibility; however, institutions would still be able
to enroll students in those programs, subjecting them to the potential
harm these regulations are designed to prevent. Restricting a cap to
the first year that an institution is subject to program sanctions in
no way mitigates these concerns.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters claimed that cosmetology programs have
limited ability to improve or reform because of State requirements for
minimum hours and curriculum, restrictions on offering programs
substantially similar to failing programs, costs of opening or
expanding new programs, and limits to their ability to offer distance
education.
Discussion: The commenters' claim that State regulation prevents
program improvement is not borne out by the data on the median debt of
cosmetology programs within States. As Figure 1.4 shows, median debts
for undergraduate certificate programs in cosmetology vary widely
within all States. In Figure 1.4, each dot represents the median debt
of a program, grouped by the State where the program is located using
data from the 2022 PPD described in the RIA. This variation suggests
that institutions can and do influence the amount of borrowing their
students acquire and can therefore improve their outcomes. At a
minimum, such varying program results within States are inconsistent
with the theory that State regulation tightly restricts opportunities
for program improvement. Furthermore, we note that, on its face, the
restriction on offering programs that are substantially similar to
failing programs does not prevent institutions from improving their
existing programs. Rather, it plainly is a safeguard against
institutions relabeling failing programs under different CIP codes
without actually improving them.
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC23.003
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed the opinion that closures
resulting from the absence of an appeal process will result in beauty
professionals having no options for schooling and the displacement of
thousands of employees. Another commenter listed negative effects that
the COVID-19 pandemic had on the beauty industry, including the closure
of salons and spas, the reluctance of clients to return, and
[[Page 70092]]
the difficulty service providers experienced in reestablishing
clientele, all of which reduced earnings. The commenter inquired how
programs can accurately be measured without an appeal process for this
time period. Another commenter posited that return on investment (ROI)
should not be the only standard by which the value of an educational
program is measured, and that there is inherent value in professions
that help people, such as social worker, counselor, hairstylist, or
esthetician. The commenter asked that due process in the form of an
appeal on that basis be offered in final regulations.
Discussion: Regarding concerns about loss of educational
opportunity for those seeking to enter the beauty profession and
possible displacement of persons employed in the industry, the
Department does not intend either of those results. We accept the need
for quality programs in the fields of cosmetology and esthetics, as
well as people to train those entering these occupations. However,
those views do not obviate the importance of program outcomes that
indicate completers have a reasonable expectation of reported,
verifiable earnings exceeding those of a high school graduate and
sufficient to service their education debt. Nor do predicted results
for a given field of training establish any shortfall in the rules'
procedures. Although some programs will not be eligible for title IV,
HEA participation as the result of repeatedly failing D/E rates or EP
measures, we are not convinced that opportunities for students who want
to train for a career in the beauty industry will be materially
circumscribed by the implementation of these rules, including the
provisions for appeals. Moreover, we believe that the increased
confidence students will have in the economic advantages of enrolling
in programs that do establish passing D/E rates and EP measures
outweigh the drawbacks associated with no longer being able to choose
from among those programs that are not eligible under these rules.
We acknowledge that the COVID-19 pandemic likely affected the
earnings of workers in salons, spas, the beauty industry, and many
other industries besides. However, we do not find a basis for offering
special appeals to any one field of programs or more broadly. As
explained elsewhere in this document, the Department is not postponing
action until such time as no earnings data through 2022 is included in
D/E rate or EP calculations. Accordingly, and in consideration of the
fact that most industries employing the graduates of GE programs were,
to some extent, affected by the pandemic, permitting appeals based on
this circumstance would effectively obviate the full effect of the rule
until at least the 2026-2027 award year. We do not view the effects of
the pandemic as being germane to the discussion of alternate earnings
appeals.
We agree with the commenter who asserted that ROI is not the only
standard by which the benefits of an education should be measured, and
that professions that help people have value beyond any remuneration
that can be expected. Elsewhere in this document and in the NPRM, we
have affirmed that students rely on a variety of appropriate
considerations in choosing among postsecondary education options and
that postsecondary education programs may reflect and serve a range of
values.\200\ However, having income sufficient to repay the debt
incurred for a program is a commonsense and fundamental part of any
assessment of whether the program prepares students for gainful
employment in a recognized occupation. It is also reasonable in that
assessment to expect that program graduates will, on average, earn more
than a high school graduate. Last, we note that the GE program measures
are not, strictly speaking, a determination of ROI, which is a formula
for determining how well a particular investment has performed relative
to others. As to the commenter's suggestion that the Department
establish an appeal based on the extent to which a program's graduates
help people or provide other societal benefits, we do not see how such
an appeal could be anything other than entirely subjective and,
therefore, lacking in fairness. Moreover, the suggestion seems to
involve the commenter's preferred measures for program success, rather
than statutory requirements or the adequacy of procedures used to
determine program eligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ See, for example, 88 FR 32300, 32306, 32322 (May 19,
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters asserted that proposed Sec. 668.603(b),
which provides a basis for appeal if a program loses eligibility upon
completion of a termination action of program eligibility, is a
misapplication of the regulations applicable to limitation, suspension,
and termination actions under subpart G, while still failing to give
institutions adequate appeal rights. One commenter, while stressing the
absence of challenges and appeals present in the 2014 Prior Rule and
arguing for their reintroduction, noted that subpart G does provide
institutions with notice and an opportunity to request a hearing prior
to suspension, limitation, or termination of that institution's
participation in the title IV, HEA programs and that no limitation,
suspension, or termination occurs until after the requested hearing is
held. Alternatively, an institution may submit written materials to the
designated Department official, who is required to consider the
materials before determining whether to limit, suspend, or terminate
participation. The commenter further offered that, even after an
initial decision, regulations allow that an institution may appeal the
initial decision to the Secretary. Citing proposed Sec.
668.91(a)(3)(vi), which stated, ``In a termination action against a GE
program based upon the program's failure to meet the requirements in
Sec. 668.403 or Sec. 668.404, the hearing official must terminate the
program's eligibility unless the hearing official concludes that the
Secretary erred in the applicable calculation,'' another commentor
expressed concern that the provision improperly removes the official's
discretion to make an eligibility determination based on the facts and
circumstances before them. The commenter also contended that, because
the rule requires the official to terminate a program's eligibility
without the opportunity for presentation of the case before a hearing
official, it violates the institution's due process rights. Other
commenters expressed the opinion that limiting the basis for any appeal
to a calculation error on the part of the Department unfairly denies
institutions any opportunity to present data that are potentially more
accurate than the data on which the Department based its calculations.
A number of commenters objected to the appeal process in subpart G
being limited to fully certified institutions. Commenters acknowledged
that procedural rights for provisionally certified institutions differ
from those of fully certified institutions with respect to
institutional eligibility but argued that (unlike for institutional
eligibility) certification status has no bearing on program-level GE
outcomes or the resulting eligibility status of those programs. The
commenters further argued that inasmuch as fewer procedural protections
would be accorded provisionally certified institutions and
opportunities to challenge underlying data are absent, the proposed
rules effectively create two separate sets of analysis for GE programs
that share the same outcome.
Some commenters suggested the introduction of an appeal based on
recalculating GE metrics using an eight-digit OPEID number. The
commenters
[[Page 70093]]
offered that alternate results calculated at the eight-digit level
would indicate where, despite failing across all locations (presumably
at the six-digit CIP level), a program is passing in specific markets
and locations, preventing those successful programs from becoming
``collateral damage.'' Commenters added that the more specific rates
and related information would have greater relevance to students
attending individual locations.
Discussion: We disagree with the commenters who asserted that the
basis for appeal in Sec. 668.603(b) is a misapplication of the
regulations in subpart G of part 668 and applicable to fine,
limitation, suspension, and termination proceedings. Under the rules
adopted here, a GE program that has failed the D/E rates measure or the
earnings premium measure in Sec. 668.402 in two out of any three
consecutive award years is ineligible and its participation in the
title IV, HEA programs ends upon the earliest of the issuance of a new
Eligibility and Certification Approval Report (ECAR) that does not
include that program, completion of a termination action of program
eligibility, or revocation of program eligibility, if the institution
is provisionally certified. Nothing in the regulations applicable to
termination proceedings limits the Department in taking such action in
circumstances where a GE program has failed the D/E rates measure or EP
measure. Accordingly, we do not believe that any part of proposed Sec.
668.603(b) is inconsistent with the provisions of subpart G or
constitutes a misapplication of its provisions.
We agree with the commenter who noted that in taking an action to
terminate the eligibility of a failing program, the Department is bound
by all of the provisions of subpart G related to due process--that is,
delivery of notice to the institution with an opportunity to request a
hearing, as well as the opportunity to submit written materials to the
designated Department official, and, finally, the institution's right
to appeal the initial decision of the hearing officer to the Secretary.
Section 668.91(a)(3)(vi) does, as noted by another commenter, require
the hearing official to terminate the program's eligibility unless they
conclude that the Secretary erred in the applicable calculation.
However, we do not agree with that commenter that this provision either
removes the official's discretion to make an eligibility determination
based on the facts and circumstances before them or violates the
institution's due process rights by requiring the Department official
to terminate a program's eligibility without the opportunity for
presentation of the case before a hearing official.
Unlike with a similar action taken as the result of serious program
violations, termination proceedings to end the participation of a
failing GE program would be based solely on the regulatory loss of
eligibility prescribed in Sec. 668.603. Such loss of eligibility can
only result from failing D/E rates or EP measures as objectively
calculated using the formulas prescribed in Sec. Sec. 668.403 and
668.404, respectively. Therefore, a conclusion by the hearing official
that the Department erred in the applicable calculation is,
appropriately, the only basis on which that individual may decline to
terminate the program's participation. However, within the context of
determining whether errors were made in calculating the D/E rates or EP
measures, the hearing official is not constrained when considering the
facts and circumstances before them. It is also not the case that these
rules will mandate that the Department official terminate a program's
eligibility without the opportunity for the institution to present its
case before a hearing official. Under Sec. 668.86(b)(1)(iii), the
Department official must inform the institution that termination will
not be effective on the date specified in the notice if the designated
Department official receives from the institution by that date a
request for a hearing.
Regarding the objections of some commenters that limiting the basis
for any appeal to a calculation error on the part of the Department
unfairly denies institutions any opportunity to present data that are
potentially more accurate than the data on which the Department based
its calculations, we have addressed the substance of that concern in
the NPRM and we elaborate on due process concerns elsewhere in this
document. Here we reiterate that, earnings data notwithstanding, the
information used by the Department to calculate D/E rates is reported
by institutions and presumed to be accurate. As discussed above,
moreover, institutions are provided an opportunity to correct completer
lists and to update or otherwise correct any reported data. Finally, we
believe that the question of whether to identify programs based on the
six-digit CIP, six-digit OPEID, or eight-digit OPEID is most
appropriately addressed in the discussion of the definition of a GE
program and not germane to a discussion of appeals. We address the
substance of that suggestion elsewhere in this document.
Changes: None.
Comments: Addressing the provision in proposed Sec. 668.405,
allowing an institution to update or otherwise correct any reported
data no later than 60 days after the end of an award year, several
commenters expressed confusion over and requested clarification from
the Department on the required timeframe being tied to the end of an
award year and suggested that the 60-day period be counted from the
date the institution is provided with a completer list. An alternative
offered by one commenter would bifurcate the process, giving
institutions 60 days from the end of the award year to correct any
self-reported data and an additional 60 days to respond to any
subsequent completer list, the assumption being that the Department's
intent is that any 60-day correction period would begin at a point
where the institution has access to all data subject to correction.
Additionally, commenters asserted that any correction opportunity
should also extend to data the Department collects itself, such as
Direct Loan Program loan debt, and that institutions should also have
the opportunity to identify students whom the Department failed to
exclude from the completer list, provided the institution has reliable
evidence that the students should be excluded.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter who expressed confusion
over the proposed timeframe for updating or otherwise correcting any
reported data and suggested separating that process and corrections to
the completer list. As noted by the commenter, an institution cannot
review the completer list until it is received, a date which may not
coincide with the end date of the academic year. Because the
composition of completer lists is based on student enrollment
information reported to NSLDS, we are not persuaded of the need for a
process whereby an institution would identify to the Department
students it (the institution) believes should be excluded from the
list. Upon receipt of a completer list, the institution should correct
any inaccurate enrollment data reported to NSLDS. Accordingly, we have
revised Sec. 668.405(b)(1)(iii) to allow the institution 60 days from
the date the Secretary provides the list to make necessary corrections
to underlying enrollment data in NSLDS. Subsequently, the Department
will presume that all such data is correct and proceed with calculating
D/E rates measures and EP measures. In response to the commenter who
asserted that any correction opportunity should extend to data the
Department collects itself (e.g., Direct Loan Program loan debt), we
note that median loan debt used in the D/E
[[Page 70094]]
calculation is derived from information the institution is required to
report to the Department and provision for the correction of that data
already exists in Sec. 668.405(a).
Changes: Section 668.405(b)(1)(iii) is revised to allow the
institution to correct underlying enrollment information reported to
NSLDS about the students on the completer list no later than 60 days
after the date the Secretary provides the list to the institution.
Comments: We received a large number of comments objecting to the
Department's decision not to include an alternate earnings appeal in
these rules. Several of these commenters characterized the absence of
an earnings appeal as a retraction of assurances made by the Department
in the 2014 Prior Rule to provide an opportunity for institutions to
demonstrate that actual earnings for a failing program are higher than
those on which D/E rates calculations were based. These commenters
cited the 2014 Prior Rule NPRM where the Department, in addressing what
was then proposed Sec. 668.406, stated, ``[w]e recognize that this
process must provide an institution an adequate opportunity to present
and have considered rebuttal evidence of the earnings data, and the
alternate earnings appeal process provides that opportunity,'' and
these commentators characterized the statement as evidence of a
previous commitment to provide due process with respect to earnings
that has been abrogated. Other commenters asserted that, inasmuch as a
high potential for the underreporting of income to the IRS exists in
``tipped'' occupations and institutions have little or no control over
whether graduates do report the portion of income derived from
gratuities, it is unfair to predicate the loss of program eligibility
on an incomplete earnings picture without providing an appeal based on
earnings surveys such as existed in the 2014 Prior Rule. Still other
commenters suggested the Department's stipulation in the preamble to
the NPRM that earnings data obtained from the IRS contains
``statistical noise'' constitutes an admission that data are
potentially flawed, further arguing the need for an earnings appeal
process.
Many of the commenters writing in opposition to the lack of an
earnings appeal objected to the Department's assertion (in the NPRM)
that alternate earnings data for cosmetology schools filed under the
previous earnings appeal (as permitted in the 2014 Prior Rule) were
``implausibly high.'' This statement was characterized by one commenter
as implying that cosmetology schools altered or manipulated earnings
data obtained from surveys to ensure D/E rates passed upon appeal. A
few commenters questioned the Department's position expressed in the
NPRM that it is unlikely any earnings appeal process would generate a
better estimate of graduates' median earnings. One of those commenters
offered that whether the alternate earnings appeal process would
frequently change the estimate of median earnings at issue is
irrelevant to whether the Department is providing institutions with due
process as required by the Constitution. Another commenter added that
the Department's conclusions regarding the likely merit of such appeals
are based on a single round of alternate earnings appeals in which only
institutions offering GE programs participated. Yet another commenter
rejected the Department's assertion that, to date, it has identified no
other data source that could be expected to yield data of higher
quality and reliability than the data available from the IRS, inquiring
why the Department asks for flexibility in seeking a source for
earnings data, why any other source would be considered, and how the
availability of appeals might be affected should the Department opt for
an alternate source that is more available but less reliable.
Some commenters questioned the Department's lack of confidence in
the results of earnings surveys, in view of the 2014 regulations then
in effect requiring an attestation from the institution's chief
operating officer, as well as an examination-level attestation
engagement report prepared by an independent public accountant or
independent government auditor that the survey was conducted in
accordance with NCES. One commenter asked whether the Department has
considered that perhaps the reported Social Security Administration
(SSA) earnings data might be the data set that is suspect. Two more
commenters related the success their respective institutions had in
mounting successful alternate earnings appeals, with one example
offered where average reported income was 65.5 percent higher than
reported SSA earnings. Both commenters expressed confidence that the
surveys were conducted in full compliance with applicable standards and
produced accurate results. Finally, two commenters disputed the notion
that an appeal process creates adverse incentives for programs to
encourage underreporting, inasmuch as institutions do not instruct
students on how to complete their taxes. These commenters also
expressed the opinion that there would be no benefit in encouraging
students to underreport their income since graduates' underreporting of
tip and other income will always harm an institution that is subject to
the GE rule.
These commenters contended that, despite expressing serious
misgivings as to the veracity of earnings surveys, the Department
presented no evidence of wrongdoing or overstating of income and
displayed an unwarranted bias against the appeal process. One commenter
summarized the Department's arguments as largely tracking those that
were rejected by the district court in American Association of
Cosmetology Schools v. DeVos (AACS).\201\ Commenters further criticized
the Department's reference to the administrative burden resulting from
the appeals structure under the 2014 Prior Rule, opining that easing
burden on the Department is not a legitimate reason for denying
institutions recourse to an earnings appeal as an essential part of
ensuring due process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ 258 F. Supp. 3d 50 (D.D.C. 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Various commenters claimed that the decision of the district court
in AACS constitutes an implied or even express mandate for the
Department to offer an earnings appeal. Citing the court's conclusion
regarding arbitrariness in making rebuttals of reported income data
overly difficult, the commenters asserted that rather than modifying
the alternate earnings appeal process to comply with the court's
decision, the Department has proposed rules that ignore the court. One
commenter added that the court ordered that the Department remove
barriers to the appeal process in order to uphold the legality of the
rule and, in doing so, signaled that it found value in the appeal
process as an alternative means of measuring earnings data that was
responsive to the problem but was constructed in a manner that was
infeasible for certain programs to utilize the appeal.
Several of the commenters argued that the Department must, out of
consideration for the district court's decision, principles of
fairness, or both, restore the alternate earnings appeal contained in
the 2014 Prior Rule (as modified by the court's order in AACS), or
conduct a study of reasonable solutions for addressing the
unreliability of reported earnings resulting from underreporting of
tipped wages, independent employment tax treatment affecting net
income, racial and gender wage discrimination, and
[[Page 70095]]
other factors that may have a bearing on program graduates. One
commenter offered that, while the district judge in the AACS case found
that the specific earnings appeal mechanism in the prior rule was
unworkable, it might be modified to comply with the law. The commenter
suggested that the Department could use an earnings appeal that
required schools to submit a statistically significant number of
responders to the appeal cohort as opposed to requiring a 100-percent
response rate, adding that changes such as this would allow for schools
to have appropriate due process rights under the GE Rule.
Discussion: The Department shares the commitment to using reliable
earnings data for the D/E and EP metrics, as expressed by many
commenters. But the Department disagrees that relatively open-ended
earnings appeals are the appropriate and sensible, let alone legally
required, means of achieving that goal. We reach that conclusion for
several reasons, many of them recounted in the NPRM. Among them are the
Department's experience with earnings appeals after the 2014 Prior Rule
went into effect, and the particular features of the rules that we
adopt here. With the benefit of experience, other developments since
2014, and the inclusion in these rules of various safeguards against
significantly inaccurate or underestimated completer earnings, we have
concluded that alternate earnings appeals of the kind the commenters
suggested would be unreasonable if not arbitrary. We have likewise
concluded that those appeals are not mandated by the Due Process Clause
of the Fifth Amendment.
We disagree, first of all, with suggestions that the Department's
2014 Prior Rule locked in a position on appeals today. We repeat that
agencies may lawfully alter positions based on nonarbitrary grounds,
which we supplied in the NPRM and further address in this document.
Furthermore, we observe that the commenters who referenced the preamble
to the 2014 Prior Rule NPRM do not appear to support the rules on
earnings appeals that were proposed and adopted in 2014. Those
provisions limited alternate earnings appeals to complaints that were
supported by a State-sponsored earnings database or an earnings survey
conducted in accordance with certain requirements established by
NCES.\202\ Based on information that was available to the Department in
2014, and to adequately assure the reliability of results and fairness
to all concerned, the Department favored a controlled form of alternate
earnings appeals. Some commenters refer us back to 2014 but without
endorsing the rules that were adopted then, and apparently without
accepting that the Department may consider developments since then. We
are not persuaded by those positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ Formerly 34 CFR 668.406(b) through (d) (rescinded).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any event, the reasons for alternate earnings appeals do not
hold as they did in 2014. We have explained the Department's position
in this document and in the NPRM. Now-familiar arguments about
unreported income have become less persuasive based on further review
and a number of considerations including: current Federal requirements
for the accurate reporting of income and increased use of electronic
transactions, which makes underreporting income more difficult; the
fact that IRS income data are used without adjustment for determining
student and family incomes for purposes of establishing student title
IV, HEA eligibility, and determining loan payments under income-driven
repayment plans; the relatively low quality of past data submitted by
institutions in alternate earnings appeals, including submissions after
litigation over the 2014 Prior Rule, along with the problems associated
with processing those appeals; and new research on unreported income.
We reiterate as well that we designed the metrics to be commonsense and
modest standards of enhanced earnings and affordable debt, and that a
GE program will have to fail the D/E or EP metric multiple times before
the program is ineligible to participate in the title IV, HEA programs.
Therefore, GE programs that are ineligible based on their repeated
failure to meet the metrics will not be on the margin in a substantive
sense, but instead will be demonstrably unable to satisfy modest
expectations with a built-in margin for error. Moreover, compared to
the 2014 Prior Rule, these rules allow additional time for program
completers to establish earnings--effectively increasing program-level
calculated earnings far beyond any estimated effects of statistical
noise in privacy-protected data, and providing further assurance that
programs will not inadvertently fail the D/E rates measure or the EP
measure. As a result of the Department's thorough review and in light
of the particular features of these rules, we conclude that it is
neither necessary nor appropriate to include a similar alternate
earnings appeal process. We respect the objections offered by
commenters, but we are not persuaded to alter this position.
Regarding the argument made by some commenters that it would be
unfair to determine program eligibility unless institutions may submit
earnings surveys, again we refer to preamble language from the 2023
NPRM. There we explained that, to date, the Department has identified
no other earnings data source that could be expected to yield higher
quality and reliability than the data available to the Department from
the IRS. We believe that alternative sources of earnings data such as
graduate earnings surveys would be more prone to issues such as low or
selective (i.e., only higher earners are sampled, or are differentially
likely to respond) response rates and inaccurate reporting, could more
easily be manipulated to mask poor program outcomes, and would impose
significant administrative burden on institutions, not only the
Department. We add here that, in adopting these rules, the Department
need not quantify the prevalence of self-interested or bad-faith
earnings estimates. Inaccurate and unreliable earnings information in
appeals is problematic whatever the explanations for its low quality.
Furthermore, we lack a reasonable basis to conclude that subsets of
institutions are likely to produce especially reliable or unreliable
surveys on earnings. We, therefore, disagree with the commenter who
suggested the Department's past experience with earnings appeals is
irrelevant to evaluating rules that cover a different set of
institutions compared to the 2014 Prior Rule. As to the influence of
institutions on the degree of compliance exercised by their graduates
with IRS reporting rules, that too is difficult to quantify with
precision. But we offer our continued and logical belief that the
potential influence of institutions on the ethical and lawful behavior
of the students they educate is not insignificant. Regardless, we
repeat that we do not believe that taxpayer-supported educational
programs should effectively receive credit for earnings that their
graduates fail to report.
Moreover, we have thoroughly considered the issue of statistical
noise in IRS earnings data. As explained in the NPRM, we understand
that the IRS would use a privacy-protective algorithm to add a small
amount of statistical noise to its estimates before providing median
earnings information to the Department. The Department recognizes this
creates a small risk of inaccurate determinations, in both directions,
including a very small likelihood that a failing program could have
passed if its unadjusted median
[[Page 70096]]
earnings data were used in calculating either D/E rates or the earnings
premium. Using data on the distribution of noise in the IRS earnings
figures used in the College Scorecard, however, we have estimated that
the probability that a program could be erroneously declared ineligible
(that is, fail in 2 of 3 years using adjusted data when unadjusted data
would result in failure for 0 years or 1 year) is itself very small--
less than 1 percent.
Assuming that such statistical noise would be introduced, the
Department plans to counteract this already small risk of improper
classification in several ways. First, we include a minimum n-size
threshold as discussed under Sec. 668.403 to avoid providing median
earnings information for smaller cohorts, where statistical noise would
have a greater impact on the earnings measure. The n-size threshold
will effectively cap the influence of the noise on D/E and EP results.
In addition, a program is not ineligible under the GE program
accountability rules until that GE program fails the accountability
measures multiple times. Furthermore, the rules will establish an
earnings calculation methodology that is more generous to title IV, HEA
supported programs than what the Department adopted in the 2014 Prior
Rule for GE programs. The rules will measure the earnings of program
completers approximately one year later (relative to when they complete
their credential) than under the 2014 Prior Rule. This will yield
substantially higher measured program earnings than under the
Department's previous methodology--on the order of $4,000 (about 20
percent) higher for GE programs with earnings between $20,000 and
$30,000, which are the programs most at risk for failing the earnings
premium threshold. This will be more generous to programs under both
the EP and D/E metrics because the higher measured program earnings
will be used in both calculations. The increase in earnings from this
later measurement of income will provide a buffer more than sufficient
to counter possible error introduced by statistical noise added by the
IRS. Together, these features of the rules safeguard against
artificially low earnings results, and they do not suggest the need for
further measures such as an earnings appeal process that would rely on
survey earnings far less reliable than those provided by the IRS.
Although the Department currently prefers to rely on IRS earnings
data, the rules also will allow the Department to obtain earnings data
from another Federal agency if unforeseen circumstances arise. That
provision of the rules will give the Department flexibility to work
with another Federal agency to secure data of adequate quality and in a
form that adequately protects the privacy of individual graduates.
Despite suggestions by one commenter, the flexibility to use other data
is no indication that the Department will use inferior data that are
insufficiently accurate and reliable for purposes of these rules. We
have confidence in the accuracy and reliability of all Federal agency
sources under consideration. In any case, the Department's NPRM
informed the public about the kind of data needed for the rules, as
well as the sources from which those data might be drawn.
In response to those commenters who viewed as pejorative the
Department's assertion that alternate earnings data for cosmetology
schools filed under the 2014 Prior Rule were implausibly high, we
intended no offense. This statement does not seek to imply that
cosmetology schools altered or manipulated earnings data obtained from
surveys to inflate D/E rates as to pass upon appeal. Rather, we sought
to convey our misgivings over what appeared to have been an excessive
amount of earnings reported by survey respondents. This may have
resulted from a number of factors that are difficult to control when
using such surveys. Those challenges in producing accurate and reliable
survey results on completer earnings are not special to cosmetology
schools.
Moreover, we disagree with some commenters' suggestions that
infrequency of errors under the rules and administrative burdens from
the alternatives that the commenters prefer are irrelevant to the Due
Process Clause. Those assertions are incorrect. To the extent that
constitutionally protected interests are even implicated when
institutions seek to benefit from government support, we reiterate that
due process remains a flexible concept that accounts for considerations
that include a relatively low probability of significant error and the
Government's interest in reducing fiscal and administrative
burdens.\203\ We likewise disagree that the Department's experience
with alternate earnings appeals is somehow irrelevant or inadequate to
provide support for these rules. Those appeals were received and
analyzed over an extended period of time during which the Department
compiled more than sufficient data to show that the process contained
serious flaws and failed to yield adequately reliable earnings data.
The Department has no evidence to suggest that subsequent rounds of
earnings appeals would have resolved the Department's misgivings about
the accuracy and reliability of earnings data obtained through the use
of earnings surveys, or about the various costs to all concerned in
operating that process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ We further address due process in an above discussion of
``Challenges, Hearings, and Appeals.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also disagree with the other arguments that commenters raised
for creating an earnings appeal in these rules. The 2014 Prior Rule did
allow for institution-sponsored surveys that met National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) standards. However, adherence to NCES
standards in this context, even when confirmed by an examination-level
attestation engagement report prepared by an independent auditor, does
not mitigate the potential for misreporting of earnings by program
graduates participating in the earnings survey. There are inherent
biases for survey respondents to inflate their earnings and little
incentive for institutions to encourage accurate survey responses.
Additionally, the amounts reported on such instruments cannot be
substantiated in any other way than to accept at face value the
information supplied by a survey respondent. The Department's
reservations about the use of earnings data surveys are already
addressed above and discussed at greater length in the 2023 NPRM. As
for whether the SSA earnings data used under the 2014 Prior Rule were
``suspect,'' we are aware of no evidence to suggest that was the case.
We do not imply that the commenters who related their own success in
alternate earnings appeals under the 2014 Prior Rule were noncompliant
with NCES standards. Again, however, the degree to which any earnings
survey was conducted in accordance with those standards is not
responsive to the Department's reservations, given experience and new
evidence, about the use of earnings data obtained in that way for
calculating D/E rates and the EP metric.
In response to the commenters who maintained that institutions do
not instruct students on how to complete their taxes, we have not
suggested that institutions regularly offer students tax advice. In
addition, we have concluded that the available evidence, taken as a
whole, indicates that underreporting is modest in size for graduates of
GE programs and other programs that are eligible to participate in the
title IV, HEA programs. We do, however, believe that adding an earnings
appeal process that is aimed at capturing unreported income could
encourage a culture of underreporting. The practical concern is that a
significant fraction of tax-
[[Page 70097]]
supported programs may produce completers who do not report
substantially all of their income to the Government at the front end,
but that, at the back end, those programs will remain eligible for
title IV, HEA support through institution-sponsored earnings surveys in
which responses are costless to program completers. And in response to
the commenters who asserted that there is no direct and immediate
benefit that accrues to institutions when students underreport their
income, the extent to which such practices will affect institutions
through GE program accountability metrics would certainly be affected
by earnings appeals that allow institutions to pitch estimates of
income that has not been reported to the IRS as required by law.
Finally, regarding evidence of wrongdoing or overstating of income
intentionally by institutions, we repeat that, in adopting these rules,
the Department need not quantify the prevalence of self-interested or
bad-faith earnings estimates. Inaccurate and unreliable earnings
information in appeals is problematic whatever the explanations for its
low quality. With respect to institution-sponsored surveys, earnings
estimates are entirely reflective of whatever figures respondents
choose to report, unverifiable, and subject to several biases for which
there are not adequate controls. Self-reported earnings on surveys are
not an appropriate substitute for substantiated earnings reported to
the IRS or another Federal agency with earnings data of comparable
quality. Indeed, most research into the extent of misreporting of
incomes in surveys take administrative data, including that provided to
the IRS or SSA using the same information reports (W2 forms and
schedule SE) we rely on to measure program graduates' earnings, as the
``ground truth'' with which to compare survey reported earnings.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ See for example, Bollinger, Hirsch, Hokayem & Ziliak
(2019). Trouble in the Tails? What We Know about Earnings
Nonresponse Thirty Years after Lillard, Smith, and Welch. Journal of
Political Economy, 127(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department disagrees with the commenters who argued that the
decision of the district court in American Association of Cosmetology
Schools v. DeVos,\205\ which addressed the 2014 Prior Rule, mandates
that the Department offer an alternate earnings appeal in this final
rule. There the district court rejected in part and accepted in part
certain arbitrariness challenges to the 2014 Prior Rule. The court held
that the Department had adequately explained why SSA earnings data were
used and without an adjustment factor for unreported income,\206\ but
the court also held that the Department had not justified certain
limits on alternate earnings appeals. The court referred to evidence of
unreported income in the 2014 rulemaking proceedings,\207\ and the
court examined the Department's reasoning, focusing on then-current law
regarding income reporting and on the earnings appeals in the 2014
Rule. In reviewing the prior rule's limits on those appeals, the court
stated that the Department had not explained its assumptions.\208\ The
court ultimately ordered that AACS member schools be allowed to pursue
earnings appeals without meeting the numerical survey requirements in
the rule.\209\ The court did observe that the notice-and-comment
process failed to identify better data or a better methodology for
calculating earnings for program completers, but, in fashioning a
remedy, the court believed that each school should be allowed to offer
something better, if it existed, during an appeal.\210\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ 258 F. Supp. 3d 50 (D.D.C. 2017).
\206\ See id. at 75-76. We note here our disagreement with
commentators' recommendations that the Department study the issue of
unreported earnings even further, given our examination of the issue
during this negotiated rulemaking process and the available
research. See generally FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 141 S. Ct.
1150, 1160 (2021) (``In the absence of additional data from
commenters, the FCC made a reasonable predictive judgment based on
the evidence it had.''); Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. Azar, 983 F.3d 528, 539
(D.C. Cir. 2020) (``The Secretary . . . is not limited to relying
only on definitive evidence. . . .''). We observe in this regard
that the AACS district court concluded that the Department was not
responsible for collecting earnings data on individual programs, see
258 F. Supp. 3d at 75 n.8, and the court indicated that the
Department had no obligation to conduct independent studies under
the applicable standard for use of data, see id. (quoting Sw. Ctr.
for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 215 F.3d 58, 60 (D.C. Cir.
2000)). See also Prometheus Radio, 141 S. Ct. at 1160 (``The
[Administrative Procedure Act] imposes no general obligation on
agencies to conduct or commission their own empirical or statistical
studies.''); District Hosp. Partners, L.P. v. Burwell, 786 F.3d 46,
56, 61 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (addressing standards for agency data use,
and indicating that a dataset on which an agency relies need not be
perfect).
\207\ Above in ``Tipped Income,'' we address such evidence of
unreported earnings along with more recent findings.
\208\ See 258 F. Supp. 3d at 74 (discussing the prior rule's
numerical response-rate requirements for earnings data from State-
sponsored data systems and from institution-sponsored surveys).
\209\ See id. at 76-77 (severing part of the 2014 appeals rule
from the remainder of the 2014 Prior Rule, and stating that the
Department ``will be able to decide, on a case-by-case basis, what
modicum of evidence is enough'').
\210\ See id. at 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department followed the district court's opinion when the 2014
Prior Rule was in effect. The opportunity to submit a Notice of Intent
to Appeal was re-opened and institutions were permitted to submit
alternate earnings appeals for programs with overall ``zone'' or fail
ratings regardless of whether the 50 percent minimum response rate or
30-response minimum were met, with the Department agreeing to review
the earnings appeals on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, the Department
allowed these case-by-case earnings appeals for all institutions, not
only AACS members. And we have taken care to examine the court's
opinion again during this rulemaking. We understand the concerns
expressed in the opinion, as well as the hope for a workable even if
open-ended earnings appeals process, given the record evidence that was
available and the reasoning in the 2014 rulemaking proceedings. We
appreciate as well that the court expressed concern for
administrability.\211\ Of course, the district court's evaluation of
the reasoning in the 2014 Prior Rule does not bind the Department in a
subsequent rulemaking that considers new and different information,
relies on a different set of reasons, and produces different final
rules. Nonetheless, the Department has been mindful of the district
court's review of the 2014 Prior Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\211\ See id. at 73 (``[T]he [Department] has discretion to
sacrifice some measure of fit for the sake of administrability.'');
id. at 74 (``Nor did the commenters propose an alternative calculus
to balance fit and administrability.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this document and the accompanying NPRM, we have explained at
length our rationale for relying on a Federal agency with earnings data
as a source of reliable, verifiable, and accurate earnings information
to use in the calculation of debt-to-earnings rates and the earnings
premium. We have similarly explained the Department's decision not to
include an alternate earnings appeal in this final rule. The
Department's position here is not based on unexplained assumptions
about tax law compliance or the value of certain survey response rates.
Instead our conclusions are based on considerations such as new data on
unreported income that indicate its modest size for the program
graduates who are relevant to this rule; new laws on reported income
and the increased use of electronic payments expected to further reduce
underreporting; a longer earnings period in these rules that safeguards
against programs failing the D/E or EP metrics in ways that concern
various commenters; the use of reported income in other Department
operations as well as the problematic incentives arising from crediting
programs with unreported income; and the
[[Page 70098]]
Department's hard-earned experience in conducting open-ended appeals
and processing the surveys and other information that was submitted.
The Department has concluded that AACS's previous estimates of up to 60
percent unreported income in that case were far too high to be
plausible, are even less indicative of actual earnings under current
circumstances, and are not a reasonable basis for adding earnings
appeals now.\212\ That is not the quality of evidence on which the
Department could rationally and fairly supersede earnings data from IRS
or another Federal agency, nor should programs receive credit for such
evidence of unreported earnings. Moreover, earnings appeals under the
2014 Rule were not only difficult to administer and burdensome for all
involved but also, and crucially, they yielded low-value information
overall. The district court in AACS could not have been aware of these
developments when it evaluated the 2014 Prior Rule, and the
Department's decision today obviously is no indication of disregard for
the court. To the contrary, the Department's decisions in this final
rule are importantly based on subsequent developments and insight
gained from following the district court's judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ For additional detail, see the discussion above in
``Tipped Income.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Program Application Requirements
Comments: One commenter voiced concern about certain portions of
the requirements under Sec. 600.21(a)(11) to update application
information for GE programs. They described the difficulty of knowing
when a change is considered to occur for the 10-day requirement to
begin, citing lengthy approval processes sometimes involving a State
and accrediting agency in addition to institutional academic governance
structures. They also voiced concern at whether even potentially minor
changes, such as a one-credit change in program length, or a minor
change in words in a program name, would trigger reporting
requirements. They recommended extending the reporting period to 30 or
60 days, and that we clarify that we require updates only for
substantive items relative to program eligibility and
misrepresentation, not to minor clerical changes not fundamental to
eligibility.
Discussion: The 10-day period for reporting changes is consistent
with the 10-day period for changes to GE programs institutions are
currently required to report, as well as other eligibility changes
(e.g., change in institutional officials, change of address, etc.), and
the Department believes that it is an appropriate reporting period.
Changes to a GE program name were already reportable changes under
Sec. 600.21(a)(11)(v).
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter sought to draw our attention to an
inconsistency between the communicated intent in the preambulatory
section to add a conforming change to acknowledge Sec. 668.603
limitations on adding new programs and re-establishing programs after a
loss in eligibility versus the language in proposed Sec.
600.10(c)(1)(v), which would have required institutions to obtain
Department approval before establishing or re-establishing any of these
programs. They suggested repositioning that provision outside of Sec.
600.10(c)(1) to correctly reflect the intention of a reporting
requirement and not an approval requirement.
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenter for their
observation. We agree that we are seeking to maintain the requirement
to report new GE programs or changes to existing GE programs, and to
add a requirement to report to the Department if a GE program is being
established or re-established that would once have been ineligible to
do so under Sec. 668.403.
Changes: The provision was repositioned outside of Sec.
600.10(c)(1), from Sec. 600.10(c)(1)(v) to Sec. 600.10(c)(3), with a
slight rewording for additional clarity.
Comments: One commenter observed that while proposed Sec.
668.604(c)(2) would prevent institutions from adding any new GE
programs to their list of eligible programs if they are substantially
similar to a failing program that became ineligible or was voluntarily
discontinued, and while language in the preamble to the 2023 NPRM
indicated an intent to use the same four-digit CIP prefix as under the
2014 rule, the rule as proposed did not contain a definition for
``substantially similar.''
Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenter and thanks
them for bringing this to our attention. We will adopt a similar
definition of ``substantially similar program'' using the four-digit
CIP prefix as was used in the 2014 Prior Rule.
We are establishing at Sec. 668.2 that two programs are
substantially similar to one another if they share the same four-digit
CIP code. Institutions may not establish a new GE program that shares
the same four-digit CIP code as a program that became ineligible or was
voluntarily discontinued when it was failing within the last three
years. An institution may establish a new GE program with a different
four-digit CIP code that is not substantially similar to an ineligible
or discontinued GE program and provide an explanation of how the new
program is different when it submits the certification for the new
program. We presume based on that submission that the new program is
not substantially similar to the ineligible or discontinued program,
but the information may be reviewed on a case-by-case basis so a new
program is not substantially similar to the other program.
We believe that this revision strikes an appropriate balance
between preventing institutions from closing and restarting a poorly
performing program to avoid accountability and ensuring that
institutions are not prevented from establishing different programs to
provide training in fields where there is demand. We believe that it is
appropriate to require an institution that is establishing a new
program to provide a certification under Sec. 668.604 that includes an
explanation of how the new GE program is not substantially similar to
each program offered by the institution that, in the prior three years,
became ineligible under the regulations' accountability provisions or
was voluntarily discontinued by the institution when the program was
failing the D/E rates or EP measure. In the first instance, the
institution will possess information on the programs in question, and
the rule still will provide a safeguard in the form of an opportunity
for the Department to evaluate such submissions when appropriate.
Changes: We have added a definition of ``substantially similar
program'' under Sec. 668.2.
Miscellaneous
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department monitor the
quality of education, or oversee curriculum, as the student progresses
through their academic program, not just by using metrics established
at the end of a program.
Discussion: The Department's authority in postsecondary education
matters is limited to issues relating to Federal student aid, the use
of Federal funds, and the specific programs administered by the
Department. Further, under section 103 of the Department of Education
Organization Act of 1979, the Department is generally prohibited from
exercising any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum,
program of instruction, administration, or personnel of an educational
institution, school, school
[[Page 70099]]
system, or accrediting agency or association.\213\ Consequently, we do
not have the authority--and are expressly prohibited from regulating--
postsecondary institutions' curriculum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ 20 U.S.C. 3403(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters suggested ways to properly identify GE
programs and determine the most appropriate method and period to
measure earnings. Suggested approaches included institutions self-
certifying the existence of adequate mechanisms already in place,
provided they point to a specific State legal requirement or process
that justifies the extended time period, or the Department could
periodically accept submissions from reliable authorities (e.g., State
regulatory bodies, accreditors or occupational industry groups)
regarding covered occupations, and the Department could periodically
publish resulting determinations in the Federal Register.
Discussion: We appreciate these suggestions. The methods for
identifying GE programs and reporting earnings data included in Sec.
668.405 allow for consistent calculations and data across states,
programs, and institutions. We believe it is critical to provide
students and families access to information that is comparable and
consistently calculated.
Changes: None.
Other Accommodations and Special Circumstances
Comments: Many commenters argued that the Department must consider
economic factors such as recessions and the COVID-19 pandemic. These
commenters stressed that these events led, and could again lead in the
future, to widespread unemployment and depressed earnings. These
commenters further stated that it would unreasonably penalize
institutions to use earnings data from periods of time that many
graduates, particularly in the health and beauty industry, were
prohibited from or otherwise unable to work.
Discussion: We believe the need for the financial value
transparency and GE program accountability frameworks is too urgent to
postpone any of their primary components to such an extent. The first
official rates published under these regulations will, for most
programs, be based on students who completed a program in award years
2018 and 2019, measuring their earnings outcomes in 2021 and 2022. The
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was most pronounced in 2020, and the
labor market had largely recovered by 2022, with strong earnings growth
particularly among lower income workers. While the unemployment rate
for workers with some college or an associate degree overall was 6.6
percent in July of 2021, up from its rate in January of 2019 of 3.9
percent, this 2.7 percentage point difference in employment will have
very little impact on median earnings--this is an additional benefit of
using the median. And overall earnings growth among employed workers
was very strong. By July of 2022, the unemployment rate had improved to
3.5 percent--tied for as low as it had ever been in the past 50
years.\214\ On balance, then, we do not expect the median earnings of
most program graduates to have been distorted by the pandemic in the
relevant years such that discarding the metrics based on these years is
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\214\ The official monthly civilian unemployment rate data can
be accessed here: https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This assessment is bolstered by analysis of College Scorecard data.
The Department does not have earnings measures for programs yet for
2021. But comparing College Scorecard earnings measures based on the
year 2020--as noted above, by a large margin the year with the greatest
elevation in unemployment due to the pandemic--suggests the pandemic
may not have had a dramatic impact on measured earnings. Comparing 3-
years earnings estimates based on earnings measured in 2018-2019 to
those based on 2019-2020 (in real dollars), shows that the pandemic did
not lead to systematically lower measured median earnings for all or
even most programs. The middle 50 percent of programs ranged from a
decline in earnings of 4.2 percent to an increase in earnings of 4.0
percent, with the median program experiencing no change in earnings
across the two periods. Since the labor market had recovered
considerably by 2021, we do not anticipate program earnings data based
on earnings in 2021 and 2022 to be overly influenced by the pandemic
for most programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters stated that various State licensing
boards were closed, behind, or backlogged by one to two years during
the COVID-19 pandemic. These delays in State licensure substantially
hindered job placements and earnings for graduates according to these
commenters, who stated that many new graduates were not able to move
forward and earn money until 2023.
Discussion: The Department recognizes that the COVID-19 pandemic
and national emergency may have impacted data from some years included
in the initial reporting period. But as noted above, available data
suggest these impacts may be limited in scope even in 2020, the year
when employment effects of the pandemic were most pronounced.
Postponing sanctions until such time as no earnings data through 2022
is included in the D/E rate or EP calculations would delay the benefits
of the rule until at least the 2026-2027 award year. To repeat, we
believe the need for the transparency and accountability measures is
too urgent to postpone any of the primary components to such an extent.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked for an exception in the final rule
for barbering and cosmetology schools based on the unique circumstances
of those schools. Specifically, the commenter suggested that the final
rule should provide for (1) a proxy amount to account for unreported
earnings that would be added to Federal agency earnings data for
barbering/cosmetology programs; (2) an alternate earnings appeal as in
the 2014 GE Rule; and (3) an exemption for institutions with revenues
of $10 million or below.
Discussion: As stated above, we do not believe it is appropriate to
make an exception for these institutions because we believe the
students at these institutions are just as deserving of protection from
accumulating unaffordable debt or experiencing no earnings gains from
GE programs. We discuss the issues of tipped income and earnings
appeals elsewhere in this final rule. Moreover, we do not believe there
is a reasoned basis for an exception based upon revenue amounts, nor
why such an exception should be only applied to cosmetology schools.
Commenters did not supply any persuasive bases for those suggested
carveouts. We believe the GE program accountability framework should be
applied to the programs that are covered by the GE provisions of the
HEA, which include cosmetology programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Another commenter requested that we not make exceptions
to the GE rules for some institutions, and we do not allow for ``carve
outs.'' The commenter stated that allowing institutions to offer low
earnings and low ROI programs without a program information website or
student acknowledgments is harmful to prospective students seeking to
attend these programs and cannot be justified.
[[Page 70100]]
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support.
Changes: None.
Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment (GE)
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and 14094
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094, defines a ``significant regulatory
action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more
(adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic
product), or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal
governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues for which centralized review
would meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the
principles stated in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in
a timely manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
The Department estimates the quantified annualized economic and net
budget impacts to be in excess of $200 million. Annualized transfers
between institutions and the Federal Government through borrowers are
estimated to be $1.2 billion at a 7 percent discount rate and $1.3
billion at a 3 percent discount rate in reduced Pell grants and loan
volume. This analysis also estimates additional annualized transfers of
$747 million (at a 3 percent discount rate; $732 million at 7 percent
discount rate) among institutions as students shift programs and
estimated annualized paperwork and compliance burden of $105.6 million
(at a 3 percent discount rate; $109.5 million at a 7 percent discount
rate) are also detailed in this analysis. Therefore, this final action
is subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
(as amended by Executive Order 14094). Pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as covered by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Notwithstanding this determination, based on our assessment of the
potential costs and benefits (quantitative and qualitative), we have
determined that the benefits of this regulatory action will justify the
costs.
We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these final regulations to address inadequate
protections for students and taxpayers in the current regulations and
to implement recent changes to the HEA. In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net
benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes
that these regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive
Order 13563.
We have also determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, territorial, and Tribal governments
in the exercise of their governmental functions.
As required by OMB Circular A-4, we compare these final regulations
to the current regulations. In this regulatory impact analysis, we
discuss the need for regulatory action, potential costs and benefits,
net budget impacts, and the regulatory alternatives we considered.
1. Covered Rule Designation
Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (5
U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
designated that this rule is covered under 5 U.S.C. 804(2) and (3).
2. Need for Regulatory Action
Summary
The title IV, HEA student financial assistance programs are a
significant annual expenditure by the Federal Government. When used
well, Federal student aid for postsecondary education can help boost
student outcomes and economic mobility. But the Department is concerned
that there are too many instances in which the financial returns of
programs leave students with debt they cannot afford or with earnings
that leave students no better off than similarly aged students who
never pursued a postsecondary education.
The final regulations will provide stronger protections for current
and prospective students of programs that typically leave graduates
with high debt burdens or low earnings. Under a program-level
transparency and accountability framework, the Department will assess a
program's debt and earnings outcomes based on debt-to-earnings (D/E)
and earnings premium (EP) metrics. These regulations will require
institutions to provide current and prospective students with a link to
a Department website providing the debt and earnings outcomes of all
programs. Students considering enrolling in all eligible programs,
other than undergraduate degree programs, that have failed D/E metrics
must acknowledge they have viewed the information prior to entering
into an enrollment agreement with an institution. Students enrolled or
considering enrollment in GE programs
[[Page 70101]]
failing either the EP or D/E measures will receive warnings that must
be acknowledged prior to receiving title IV, HEA funds. Finally, GE
programs that consistently fail to meet the performance metrics will
become ineligible for title IV, HEA funds.
The regulations will, therefore, increase transparency and
strengthen accountability for postsecondary institutions and programs
in several critical ways. All institutions will be required to provide
students a link to access information about debt and earnings outcomes.
Non-GE certificate and graduate programs not meeting the D/E standards
will be required to have students acknowledge viewing this information
before entering enrollment agreements, and career training programs
failing either the D/E or EP metrics will need to warn students about
the possibility that they would lose eligibility for Federal aid. Some
institutions will have to improve their offerings or lose access to
Federal aid. As a result, students and taxpayers will have greater
assurances that their money is spent at institutions that deliver value
and merit Federal support.
The Financial Value Transparency and GE eligibility provisions in
subparts Q and S of the final regulations are intended to address the
problem that many programs are not delivering sufficient financial
value to students and taxpayers, and students and families often lack
the information on the financial consequences of attending different
programs needed to make informed decisions about where to attend. These
issues are especially prevalent among programs that, as a condition of
eligibility for title IV, HEA program funds, are required by statute to
provide training that prepares students for gainful employment in a
recognized occupation. Currently, many of these programs leave the
typical graduate with unaffordable levels of loan debt in relation to
their income, earnings that are no greater than what they would
reasonably expect to receive if they had not attended the program, or
both.
Through this regulatory action, the Department establishes: (1) A
Financial Value Transparency framework that will increase the quality,
availability, and salience of information about the outcomes of
students enrolled in all title IV, HEA programs and (2) an
accountability framework for GE programs that will define what it means
to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation
by establishing standards by which the Department would evaluate
whether a GE program remains eligible for title IV, HEA program funds.
As noted in the preamble to this regulation, there are different
statutory grounds for the transparency and accountability frameworks.
The transparency framework (subpart Q and Sec. 668.43) will
establish reporting and program information website requirements that
will increase the transparency of student outcomes for all programs.
This will provide the most accurate and comparable information possible
to students, prospective students, and their families to help them make
better informed decisions about where to invest their time and money in
pursuit of a postsecondary degree or credential. Institutions will be
required to provide information about program characteristics,
outcomes, and costs and the Department will assess a program's debt and
earnings outcomes based on debt-to-earnings and earnings premium
metrics, using information reported by institutions and information
otherwise obtained by the Department. The final rule seeks to provide
salient information to students by requiring that institutions provide
current and prospective students with a link to view cost, debt, and
earnings outcomes of their chosen program on the Department's website.
For non-GE programs (excepting undergraduate degree programs where
students commonly do not apply to a particular program) failing the
debt-to-earnings metrics, the Department will require an acknowledgment
that the enrolled or prospective student has viewed the information.
Further, the website will provide the public, taxpayers, and the
Government with relevant information to help understand the outcomes of
these programs receiving Federal investment.
Finally, the transparency framework will provide institutions with
meaningful information that they can use to improve the outcomes for
students and guide their decisions about program offerings.
The accountability framework (subpart S) defines what it means to
prepare students for gainful employment by establishing standards that
assess whether typical students leave programs with reasonable debt
burdens and earn more than the typical worker who completed no more
education than a high school diploma or equivalent. GE programs that
repeatedly fail to meet these criteria will lose eligibility to
participate in title IV, HEA student aid programs.
Overview of Postsecondary Programs Supported by Title IV of the HEA
Under subpart Q, we will, among other things, assess debt and
earnings outcomes for students in all programs participating in title
IV, HEA programs, including both GE programs and eligible non-GE
programs. Under subpart S, we will, among other things, establish title
IV, HEA eligibility requirements for GE programs. In assessing the need
for these regulatory actions, the Department analyzed program
performance. The Department's analysis of program performance is based
on data assembled for all title IV, HEA postsecondary programs
operating as of March 2022 that also had completions reported in the
2015-16 and 2016-17 award years (AY). This data, referred to as the
``2022 Program Performance Data (2022 PPD),'' is described in detail in
the ``Data Used in this RIA'' section below, though we draw on it in
this section to describe outcome differences across programs.
Table 2.1 reports the number of programs and average title IV, HEA
enrollment for all institutions in our data for AY 2016 and 2017.
Throughout this RIA, we provide analysis separately for programs that
will be affected only by subpart Q and those that will additionally be
affected by subpart S (GE programs).
Table 2.1--Combined Number of Title IV Eligible Programs and Title IV
Enrollment by Control and Credential Level Combining GE and Non-GE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
-------------------------------
Programs Enrollees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
UG Certificates..................... 18,971 869,600
Associate........................... 27,312 5,496,800
Bachelor's.......................... 24,338 5,800,700
Post-BA Certs....................... 872 12,600
[[Page 70102]]
Master's............................ 14,582 760,500
Doctoral............................ 5,724 145,200
Professional........................ 568 127,500
Grad Certs.......................... 1,939 41,900
-------------------------------
Total........................... 94,306 13,254,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates..................... 1,387 77,900
Associate........................... 2,321 266,900
Bachelor's.......................... 29,752 2,651,300
Post-BA Certs....................... 629 7,900
Master's............................ 10,362 796,100
Doctoral............................ 2,854 142,900
Professional........................ 493 130,400
Grad Certs.......................... 1,397 35,700
-------------------------------
Total........................... 49,195 4,109,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proprietary:
UG Certificates..................... 3,218 549,900
Associate........................... 1,720 326,800
Bachelor's.......................... 963 675,800
Post-BA Certs....................... 52 800
Master's............................ 478 240,000
Doctoral............................ 122 54,000
Professional........................ 32 12,100
Grad Certs.......................... 128 10,800
-------------------------------
Total........................... 6,713 1,870,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Private:
UG Certificates..................... 28 100
Associate........................... 18 100
Bachelor's.......................... 1,228 5,500
Post-BA Certs....................... 27 <50
Master's............................ 3,075 9,000
Doctoral............................ 793 2,800
Professional........................ 104 1,500
Grad Certs.......................... 77 1,500
-------------------------------
Total........................... 5,350 20,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign For-Profit:
UG Certificates..................... 1 <50
Master's............................ 6 200
Doctoral............................ 4 1,900
Professional........................ 7 11,600
-------------------------------
Total........................... 18 13,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total:
UG Certificates..................... 23,605 1,497,500
Associate........................... 31,371 6,090,700
Bachelor's.......................... 56,281 9,133,200
Post-BA Certs....................... 1,580 21,400
Master's............................ 28,503 1,805,800
Doctoral............................ 9,497 346,800
Professional........................ 1,204 283,100
Grad Certs.......................... 3,541 89,900
-------------------------------
Total........................... 155,582 19,268,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Counts are rounded to the nearest 100.
[[Page 70103]]
There are 123,524 degree programs at public or private nonprofit
institutions (hereafter, ``eligible non-GE programs'' or ``non-GE
programs'') in the 2022 PPD that will be subject to the transparency
regulations in subpart Q but not the GE regulations in subpart S.\215\
These programs served approximately 16.3 million students annually who
received title IV, HEA aid, totaling $25 billion in grants and $61
billion in loans. Table 2.2 displays the number of non-GE programs by
two-digit CIP code, credential level, and institutional control in the
2022 PPD. Two-digit CIP codes aggregate programs by broad subject area.
Table 2.3 displays enrollment of students receiving title IV, HEA
program funds in non-GE programs in the same categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ Throughout the RIA, ``not-for-profit'' and ``nonprofit''
are used interchangeably to refer to private nonprofit institutions.
[[Page 70104]]
Table 2.2--Number of Non-GE Programs by CIP2, Credential Level, and Control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Private, Nonprofit Foreign
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total
Assoc. Bach. Master's Doct. Prof. Assoc. Bach. Master's Doct. Prof. Assoc. Bach. Master's Doct. Prof.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Agriculture & Related Sciences............................ 693 507 267 143 1 20 95 14 5 ......... ........ 10 27 6 ........ 1,788
3: Natural Resources & Conservation.......................... 260 433 219 114 2 10 445 67 8 ......... ........ 12 80 9 ........ 1,659
4: Architecture & Related Services........................... 91 216 224 43 6 4 102 117 13 4 ........ 14 54 12 2 902
5: Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Gender, & Group Studies........... 84 366 128 58 2 3 413 58 25 ......... ........ 11 70 20 ........ 1,238
9: Communication............................................. 460 807 301 75 2 28 1,221 216 20 ......... 1 61 102 6 ........ 3,300
10: Communications Tech...................................... 312 63 9 ........ ......... 10 97 16 ........ ......... ........ 6 7 ........ ........ 520
11: Computer & Information Sciences & Support Services....... 1,986 857 460 126 1 127 1,051 297 59 2 1 36 59 11 ........ 5,073
12: Personal & Culinary Services............................. 539 20 .......... ........ ......... 27 21 2 ........ ......... ........ ........ 2 ........ ........ 611
13: Education................................................ 975 1,158 2,204 641 36 94 1,725 2,103 299 25 1 32 111 29 5 9,438
14: Engineering.............................................. 516 1,556 1,243 719 15 12 833 524 271 ......... ........ 70 86 33 1 5,879
15: Engineering Tech......................................... 2,375 563 164 13 ......... 98 136 89 7 1 ........ 6 25 2 ........ 3,479
16: Foreign Languages........................................ 286 960 332 167 5 4 1,148 102 93 1 ........ 39 91 26 ........ 3,254
19: Family & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences................ 586 368 182 59 2 13 178 48 12 1 ........ 6 24 1 1 1,481
22: Legal Professions & Studies.............................. 437 98 81 18 97 44 158 107 42 114 1 36 94 17 29 1,373
23: English Language......................................... 262 645 451 121 4 10 1,063 208 57 ......... ........ 57 130 57 3 3,068
24: Liberal Arts............................................. 1,035 438 120 11 5 265 661 114 9 2 ........ 52 43 17 1 2,773
25: Library Science.......................................... 33 7 57 12 2 ........ 2 16 2 1 ........ 1 14 2 ........ 149
26: Biological & Biomedical Sciences......................... 370 1,222 894 793 15 28 1,678 389 349 7 ........ 75 171 58 ........ 6,049
27: Mathematics & Statistics................................. 243 660 432 192 2 5 856 135 81 1 ........ 15 30 11 ........ 2,663
28: Military Science......................................... ........ 5 1 ........ ......... ........ 2 1 ........ ......... ........ 1 3 ........ ........ 13
29: Military Tech............................................ 8 2 3 ........ ......... 1 9 9 ........ ......... ........ ........ 1 ........ ........ 33
30: Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies.......................... 440 716 372 115 6 33 1,023 259 52 4 2 45 139 27 1 3,234
31: Parks & Rec.............................................. 341 474 253 53 3 18 571 103 6 ......... 1 9 21 6 ........ 1,859
32: Basic Skills & Developmental/Remedial Education.......... 18 1 2 ........ ......... 1 ........ .......... ........ ......... ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 22
33: Citizenship Activities................................... ........ ........ .......... ........ ......... ........ 1 .......... ........ ......... ........ ........ 2 ........ ........ 3
34: Health-Related Knowledge & Skills........................ 4 2 .......... ........ ......... 1 4 1 ........ ......... ........ 1 14 2 1 30
35: Interpersonal & Social Skills............................ ........ ........ .......... ........ ......... ........ 1 .......... ........ ......... ........ ........ 1 ........ ........ 2
36: Leisure & Recreational Activities........................ 12 10 3 ........ ......... 1 21 1 ........ ......... ........ 7 22 6 ........ 83
37: Personal Awareness & Self-Improvement.................... ........ ........ .......... ........ ......... ........ ........ 1 ........ ......... ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 1
38: Philosophy & Religious Studies........................... 76 435 117 72 1 20 980 161 80 8 ........ 17 43 26 1 2,037
39: Theology & Religious Vocations........................... 2 1 .......... ........ ......... 144 861 567 167 60 3 16 42 26 1 1,890
40: Physical Sciences........................................ 440 1,262 604 418 3 10 1,232 176 167 ......... 1 33 67 41 1 4,455
41: Science Technologies/Technicians......................... 171 11 7 1 ......... 3 9 1 ........ ......... ........ 7 15 5 ........ 230
42: Psychology............................................... 259 584 477 257 8 36 1,053 424 189 13 ........ 61 127 34 3 3,525
43: Homeland Security........................................ 1,253 392 195 25 ......... 106 476 161 4 ......... ........ 2 20 3 1 2,638
44: Public Admin & Social Services........................... 375 474 495 111 8 40 509 254 45 4 ........ 6 73 7 2 2,403
[[Page 70105]]
45: Social Sciences.......................................... 734 2,092 826 400 13 27 2,391 276 158 4 1 142 385 122 2 7,573
46: Construction Trades...................................... 464 11 1 ........ ......... 21 4 .......... ........ ......... ........ ........ 3 1 ........ 505
47: Mechanic & Repair Technologies/Technicians............... 1,059 19 .......... ........ ......... 41 8 .......... ........ ......... ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 1,127
48: Precision Production..................................... 433 2 1 ........ ......... 13 5 2 ........ ......... ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 456
49: Transportation & Materials Moving........................ 114 57 7 1 ......... 10 35 5 2 ......... ........ ........ 1 2 ........ 234
50: Visual & Performing Arts................................. 1,442 1,746 637 144 8 83 2,585 393 69 1 2 128 225 54 1 7,518
51: Health Professions & Related Programs.................... 4,288 1,929 1,407 575 299 486 1,794 1,306 406 216 3 45 168 41 44 13,007
52: Business................................................. 3,669 2,688 1,131 143 18 415 3,556 1,554 109 24 1 129 387 25 3 13,852
53: High School/Secondary Diplomas........................... 1 1 .......... ........ ......... ........ 2 1 ........ ......... ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 5
54: History.................................................. 165 480 271 103 3 9 737 83 48 ......... ........ 40 90 46 1 2,076
60: Residency Programs....................................... 1 ........ 4 1 1 ........ ........ 1 ........ ......... ........ ........ 6 2 ........ 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.3--Title IV Enrollment of Non-GE Programs by CIP2, Credential Level, and Control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Private, nonprofit Foreign
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total
Assoc. Bach. Master's Doct. Prof. Assoc. Bach. Master's Doct. Prof. Assoc. Bach. Master's Doct. Prof.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Agriculture & Related Sciences......................... 24,100 65,500 5,300 1,300 <50 700 5,200 200 <50 ......... ........ <50 100 <50 ........ 102,500
3: Natural Resources & Conservation....................... 10,200 50,800 5,300 1,400 <50 300 15,700 2,200 200 ......... ........ 100 100 <50 ........ 86,300
4: Architecture & Related Services........................ 5,300 24,000 8,400 500 300 100 7,700 4,300 100 100 ........ <50 100 <50 <50 51,000
5: Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Gender, & Group Studies........ 2,700 21,100 2,100 900 <50 <50 7,700 1,100 600 ......... ........ <50 200 <50 ........ 36,500
9: Communication.......................................... 40,900 228,200 8,400 1,500 <50 500 91,800 9,700 300 ......... <50 200 300 <50 ........ 381,800
10: Communications Tech................................... 22,200 7,600 100 ........ ......... 300 7,600 500 ........ ......... ........ <50 <50 ........ ........ 38,400
11: Computer & Information Sciences & Support Services.... 200,300 210,200 18,000 1,500 200 10,000 89,200 14,400 700 <50 <50 100 100 <50 ........ 544,700
12: Personal & Culinary Services.......................... 47,900 1,000 .......... ........ ......... 9,700 6,900 100 ........ ......... ........ ........ <50 ........ ........ 65,600
13: Education............................................. 140,600 318,400 195,800 29,700 1,800 4,500 147,400 175,600 27,500 1,900 0 100 200 100 <50 1,043,600
14: Engineering........................................... 73,900 352,200 26,400 8,100 100 300 85,200 10,500 3,100 ......... ........ 200 100 <50 0 560,300
15: Engineering Tech...................................... 120,400 61,800 4,700 200 ......... 5,200 8,700 2,400 200 0 ........ <50 <50 0 ........ 203,500
16: Foreign Languages..................................... 14,600 51,800 3,900 1,800 <50 100 20,900 1,000 700 <50 ........ 100 200 <50 ........ 95,100
19: Family & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences............. 83,500 78,700 5,500 700 <50 1,900 18,900 2,500 100 <50 ........ <50 100 <50 0 191,800
22: Legal Professions & Studies........................... 33,700 13,200 2,700 3,900 30,900 2,900 7,200 5,400 9,200 48,200 0 100 200 <50 100 157,900
23: English Language...................................... 26,500 110,700 11,200 3,800 <50 100 45,800 8,400 1,000 ......... ........ 200 300 100 <50 208,200
24: Liberal Arts.......................................... 2,048,400 549,800 9,300 300 100 44,600 263,200 4,900 200 <50 ........ 900 400 100 <50 2,922,000
25: Library Science....................................... 900 300 11,000 100 100 ........ <50 2,000 <50 100 ........ <50 100 <50 ........ 14,600
26: Biological & Biomedical Sciences...................... 94,700 419,700 17,400 11,000 100 800 163,100 11,000 5,100 200 ........ 200 400 100 ........ 724,000
27: Mathematics & Statistics.............................. 21,500 62,500 6,300 2,200 <50 <50 24,800 1,400 500 <50 ........ <50 <50 <50 ........ 119,200
28: Military Science...................................... ........... <50 <50 ........ ......... ........ <50 <50 ........ ......... ........ <50 <50 ........ ........ 100
29: Military Tech......................................... 2,700 500 <50 ........ ......... <50 900 700 ........ ......... ........ ........ <50 ........ ........ 4,800
30: Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies....................... 147,300 185,400 10,400 1,600 <50 1,500 48,300 7,300 1,100 <50 <50 200 500 100 <50 403,800
31: Parks & Rec........................................... 43,100 170,200 12,300 1,000 <50 1,100 64,300 7,500 300 ......... <50 <50 100 <50 ........ 300,000
[[Page 70106]]
32: Basic Skills & Developmental/Remedial Education....... 400 <50 200 ........ ......... 100 ........ .......... ........ ......... ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 600
33: Citizenship Activities................................ ........... ........ .......... ........ ......... ........ <50 .......... ........ ......... ........ ........ <50 ........ ........ <50
34: Health-Related Knowledge & Skills..................... 700 500 .......... ........ ......... <50 100 <50 ........ ......... ........ <50 <50 <50 <50 1,400
35: Interpersonal & Social Skills......................... ........... ........ .......... ........ ......... ........ <50 .......... ........ ......... ........ ........ <50 ........ ........ <50
36: Leisure & Recreational Activities..................... 600 700 <50 ........ ......... <50 700 <50 ........ ......... ........ <50 <50 <50 ........ 2,100
37: Personal Awareness & Self-Improvement................. ........... ........ .......... ........ ......... ........ ........ <50 ........ ......... ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ <50
38: Philosophy & Religious Studies........................ 2,100 18,400 1,100 1,000 <50 2,100 23,600 3,100 1,600 100 ........ <50 100 100 <50 53,200
39: Theology & Religious Vocations........................ <50 <50 .......... ........ ......... 5,700 51,800 38,100 4,500 2,300 <50 100 100 100 <50 102,800
40: Physical Sciences..................................... 44,300 114,300 7,000 7,500 <50 100 33,700 1,100 2,500 ......... 0 100 100 100 <50 210,700
41: Science Technologies/Technicians...................... 16,300 1,500 100 <50 ......... 100 400 <50 ........ ......... ........ <50 <50 <50 ........ 18,500
42: Psychology............................................ 81,000 330,000 24,900 9,700 100 3,100 157,300 49,200 16,100 500 ........ 300 300 100 <50 672,500
43: Homeland Security..................................... 218,200 167,500 13,100 500 ......... 12,500 84,800 12,000 100 ......... ........ <50 <50 <50 <50 508,700
44: Public Admin & Social Services........................ 53,800 100,500 66,200 2,200 900 5,500 49,700 45,500 1,000 500 ........ <50 100 <50 <50 326,100
45: Social Sciences....................................... 82,800 320,200 15,500 7,400 200 300 125,700 11,900 2,300 <50 0 800 1,700 300 <50 569,200
46: Construction Trades................................... 18,300 1,100 <50 ........ ......... 1,000 100 .......... ........ ......... ........ ........ <50 <50 ........ 20,500
47: Mechanic & Repair Technologies/Technicians............ 71,000 700 .......... ........ ......... 7,700 1,200 .......... ........ ......... ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 80,700
48: Precision Production.................................. 23,700 <50 <50 ........ ......... 600 100 <50 ........ ......... ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 24,400
49: Transportation & Materials Moving..................... 6,900 11,900 300 <50 ......... 1,300 9,800 1,400 <50 ......... ........ ........ <50 <50 ........ 31,700
50: Visual & Performing Arts.............................. 118,600 215,900 14,300 3,400 <50 3,000 137,400 12,800 1,100 <50 <50 600 900 100 <50 508,200
51: Health Professions & Related Programs................. 902,300 591,600 123,300 37,800 91,500 98,700 328,300 154,900 54,800 75,400 <50 200 600 1,000 1,400 2,461,800
52: Business.............................................. 641,600 876,800 124,200 2,000 1,000 40,500 490,100 190,400 6,700 1,100 0 600 1,200 <50 <50 2,376,100
53: High School/Secondary Diplomas........................ <50 1,600 .......... ........ ......... ........ <50 <50 ........ ......... ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 1,600
54: History............................................... 9,000 63,800 5,900 2,200 <50 100 25,700 2,400 1,000 ......... ........ 100 300 100 0 110,500
60: Residency Programs.................................... 0 ........ <50 <50 <50 ........ ........ <50 ........ ......... ........ ........ <50 <50 ........ 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Counts rounded to the nearest 100.
[[Page 70107]]
GE programs are non-degree programs, including diploma and
certificate programs, at public and private nonprofit institutions and
educational programs at for-profit institutions of higher education
regardless of program length or credential level.\216\ Common GE
programs provide training for occupations in fields such as
cosmetology, business administration, medical assisting, dental
assisting, nursing, and massage therapy. There were 32,058 GE programs
in the 2022 PPD.\217\ About two-thirds of these programs are at public
institutions, 11 percent at private nonprofit institutions, and 21
percent at for-profit institutions. In AY 2016 or 2017, these programs
annually served approximately 2.9 million students who received title
IV, HEA aid. The Federal investment in students attending GE programs
is significant and growing. In AY 2022, students enrolled in GE
programs received approximately $5 billion in Federal Pell grant
funding and approximately $11 billion in Federal student loans. Table
2.4 displays the number of GE programs grouped by two-digit CIP code,
credential level, and institutional control in the 2022 PPD. Table 2.5
displays enrollment of students receiving title IV, HEA program funds
in GE programs in the same categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ ``For-profit'' and ``proprietary'' are used
interchangeably throughout this RIA. Foreign schools are schools
located outside of the United States at which eligible US students
can use Federal student aid.
\217\ Note that the 2022 PPD will differ from the universe of
programs that are subject to the final GE regulations for the
reasons described in more detail in the ``Data Used in this RIA''
section, including that the 2022 PPD includes programs defined by
four-digit CIP code while the rule defines programs by six-digit CIP
code.
[[Page 70108]]
Table 2.4--Number of GE Programs by CIP2, Credential Level, and Control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Private, nonprofit Proprietary Foreign
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post- Post- Post- Post- Total
UG BA Grad UG BA Grad UG Assoc. Bach. BA Master's Doct. Prof. Grad UG BA Master's Doct. Prof. Grad
certs cert cert certs cert cert certs cert cert certs cert cert
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Agriculture & Related Sciences...................... 375 4 3 7 ...... 2 11 4 1 1 ......... ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... 1 409
3: Natural Resources & Conservation.................... 91 10 21 8 1 2 2 ...... 5 1 1 ...... ...... 1 ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 143
4: Architecture & Related Services..................... 29 10 10 4 1 8 1 ...... 4 ...... 3 ...... 2 ....... ...... 1 ......... ...... ...... 1 74
5: Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Gender, & Group Studies..... 61 14 42 14 4 12 1 ...... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ....... 1 3 ......... ...... ...... 1 153
9: Communication....................................... 171 12 38 25 7 16 14 14 25 ...... 9 ...... ...... 1 1 ...... ......... ...... ...... 2 335
10: Communications Tech................................ 272 2 2 3 3 3 24 23 24 1 3 ...... ...... ....... 1 ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 361
11: Computer & Information Sciences & Support Services. 1,479 28 64 51 31 36 140 168 110 1 41 4 ...... 8 ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... 1 2,162
12: Personal & Culinary Services....................... 788 2 2 34 1 ....... 900 79 11 4 6 3 4 7 2 ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 1,843
13: Education.......................................... 461 222 494 62 134 406 35 20 33 8 63 23 1 29 1 2 ......... ...... ...... 5 1,999
14: Engineering........................................ 98 31 62 10 6 33 4 5 10 ...... 5 ...... ...... ....... 1 1 ......... ...... ...... 1 267
15: Engineering Tech................................... 1,453 5 21 34 4 4 84 71 21 1 4 ...... ...... 1 ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... 3 1,706
16: Foreign Languages.................................. 205 15 9 37 5 3 ...... ...... 2 ...... ......... ...... ...... ....... 2 ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 278
19: Family & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences.......... 530 7 23 18 5 7 10 8 11 1 2 1 ...... 2 ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 625
22: Legal Professions & Studies........................ 285 18 15 35 15 26 36 66 24 4 5 1 8 ....... ...... 2 ......... ...... ...... 12 552
23: English Language................................... 79 18 35 13 5 6 11 5 11 ...... 2 ...... ...... ....... 2 ...... ......... ...... ...... 3 190
24: Liberal Arts....................................... 329 15 22 22 18 19 1 10 12 ...... 2 1 ...... ....... ...... 1 ......... ...... ...... 1 453
25: Library Science.................................... 22 7 16 ...... 1 5 ...... ...... 1 ...... ......... ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 52
26: Biological & Biomedical Sciences................... 69 22 61 22 14 25 2 1 8 ...... 1 2 ...... 1 ...... 1 3 ...... ...... 2 234
27: Mathematics & Statistics........................... 18 12 26 10 2 3 ...... ...... 2 ...... ......... ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 73
28: Military Science................................... ...... ...... 1 ...... ...... ....... 1 1 1 ...... ......... ...... ...... 1 ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 5
29: Military Tech...................................... 6 ...... 1 1 ...... 3 1 2 1 ...... 1 ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 16
30: Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies.................... 156 51 105 26 23 36 5 4 14 2 6 ...... ...... 5 ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... 2 435
31: Parks & Rec........................................ 145 7 15 14 3 9 25 25 8 ...... 2 1 ...... 1 1 ...... ......... ...... ...... 1 257
32: Basic Skills & Developmental/Remedial Education.... 26 ...... ....... 4 ...... 1 7 ...... ...... ...... 1 ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 39
33: Citizenship Activities............................. 1 ...... ....... ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 1
34: Health-Related Knowledge & Skills.................. 4 ...... 3 1 ...... 2 5 ...... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 15
35: Interpersonal & Social Skills...................... ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... 1 ...... ...... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 1
36: Leisure & Recreational Activities.................. 5 ...... ....... 2 ...... ....... 1 ...... ...... ...... 1 ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 9
37: Personal Awareness & Self-Improvement.............. 1 1 1 ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 3
38: Philosophy & Religious Studies..................... 15 1 7 23 6 7 ...... ...... 3 ...... 1 ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... 1 64
39: Theology & Religious Vocations..................... 1 ...... ....... 60 49 50 ...... 1 5 ...... 7 1 1 ....... ...... 1 ......... ...... ...... ...... 176
40: Physical Sciences.................................. 41 7 16 15 ...... 5 1 1 3 ...... ......... ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... 1 90
41: Science Technologies/Technicians................... 75 2 3 1 1 ....... 1 1 ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 84
42: Psychology......................................... 38 23 74 19 20 59 ...... 2 14 2 19 15 ...... 7 1 ...... ......... ...... ...... 3 296
[[Page 70109]]
43: Homeland Security.................................. 747 15 32 42 8 30 31 74 58 1 23 4 ...... 6 ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 1,071
44: Public Admin & Social Services..................... 161 28 59 17 6 28 3 5 14 1 19 7 ...... 4 ...... 2 ......... ...... ...... 1 355
45: Social Sciences.................................... 164 30 79 44 11 29 ...... 1 15 ...... 5 1 ...... ....... 3 3 ......... ...... ...... 5 390
46: Construction Trades................................ 840 ...... ....... 28 ...... 1 62 14 ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ....... 1 ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 946
47: Mechanic & Repair Technologies/Technicians......... 1,469 1 1 42 ...... ....... 188 65 1 ...... ......... ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 1,767
48: Precision Production............................... 751 ...... ....... 18 ...... ....... 51 13 ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 833
49: Transportation & Materials Moving.................. 187 2 2 11 ...... ....... 32 5 ...... ...... 1 ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 240
50: Visual & Performing Arts........................... 540 16 48 75 29 36 65 85 98 1 26 ...... 1 1 8 3 ......... ...... ...... 10 1,042
51: Health Professions & Related Programs.............. 4,025 124 327 386 132 274 1,261 637 174 8 101 35 11 25 2 2 3 4 7 5 7,543
52: Business........................................... 2,733 100 189 140 83 208 198 308 233 15 117 23 4 27 2 2 ......... ...... ...... 14 4,396
53: High School/Secondary Diplomas..................... 4 ...... ....... ...... ...... ....... 1 1 ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... 6
54: History............................................ 18 9 7 8 ...... ....... 1 1 6 ...... 1 ...... ...... 1 ...... 3 ......... ...... ...... ...... 55
60: Residency Programs................................. 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 ...... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... ....... ...... ...... ......... ...... ...... 1 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.5--Title IV Enrollment of GE Programs by CIP2, Credential Level, and Control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Private, nonprofit Proprietary Foreign
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post- Post- Post- Post- Total
UG certs BA Grad UG BA Grad UG certs Assoc. Bach. BA Master's Doct. Prof. Grad UG BA Master's Doct. Prof. Grad
cert cert certs cert cert cert cert certs cert cert
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Agriculture & Related Sciences......... 5,600 <50 <50 200 ...... <50 300 <50 <50 <50 ........ ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... <50 6,200
3: Natural Resources & Conservation....... 1,200 <50 200 100 <50 <50 100 ........ 4,400 <50 400 ....... ...... <50 ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 6,400
4: Architecture & Related Services........ 600 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 ........ 600 ...... 200 ....... 300 ....... ...... 0 ........ ...... ....... <50 1,700
5: Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Gender, & Group 800 100 300 100 100 100 <50 ........ ........ ...... ........ ....... ...... ....... <50 <50 ........ ...... ....... 0 1,500
Studies..................................
9: Communication.......................... 3,700 100 400 300 <50 200 3,300 400 6,700 ...... 800 ....... ...... <50 <50 ...... ........ ...... ....... <50 15,800
10: Communications Tech................... 4,700 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 3,200 2,700 7,300 <50 200 ....... ...... ....... 0 ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 18,200
11: Computer & Information Sciences & 34,500 200 1,100 1,200 300 500 8,900 20,500 52,500 <50 6,400 800 ...... 300 ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... <50 127,100
Support Services.........................
12: Personal & Culinary Services.......... 31,000 <50 <50 3,200 <50 ........ 176,800 7,600 1,100 <50 200 <50 <50 100 <50 ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 220,100
13: Education............................. 16,100 4,500 16,000 1,700 2,400 14,100 800 6,700 33,500 100 37,000 15,800 1,100 2,100 0 <50 ........ ...... ....... <50 152,000
14: Engineering........................... 8,600 200 500 300 <50 200 200 500 1,500 ...... 100 ....... ...... ....... 0 <50 ........ ...... ....... <50 11,900
15: Engineering Tech...................... 22,500 <50 300 1,100 <50 <50 14,500 6,300 8,000 <50 1,400 ....... ...... <50 ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... <50 54,100
16: Foreign Languages..................... 4,600 <50 <50 400 <50 <50 ........ ........ 300 ...... ........ ....... ...... ....... <50 ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 5,400
19: Family & Consumer Sciences/Human 22,100 <50 200 500 100 100 600 2,100 4,500 <50 1,000 300 ...... 100 ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 31,600
Sciences.................................
22: Legal Professions & Studies........... 7,100 500 400 900 400 800 1,200 6,700 2,200 200 400 <50 1,700 ....... ...... <50 ........ ...... ....... <50 22,600
23: English Language...................... 3,900 100 300 1,600 100 <50 4,300 700 4,300 ...... 300 ....... ...... ....... <50 ...... ........ ...... ....... <50 15,700
24: Liberal Arts.......................... 139,500 500 3,000 1,400 500 600 <50 2,300 3,800 ...... 200 100 ...... ....... ...... <50 ........ ...... ....... <50 151,900
25: Library Science....................... 300 100 400 ....... <50 100 ........ ........ 300 ...... ........ ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 1,100
26: Biological & Biomedical Sciences...... 2,700 100 600 300 100 200 <50 <50 2,700 ...... <50 <50 ...... <50 ...... 0 <50 ...... ....... <50 6,900
27: Mathematics & Statistics.............. 400 200 100 100 <50 <50 ........ ........ 400 ...... ........ ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 1,300
28: Military Science...................... ........ ...... <50 ....... ...... ........ <50 <50 200 ...... ........ ....... ...... 0 ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 200
29: Military Tech......................... 100 ...... <50 <50 ...... 100 <50 200 100 ...... <50 ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 400
30: Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies....... 14,100 700 1,600 500 500 500 100 3,500 25,000 <50 1,200 ....... ...... 300 ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... <50 48,100
31: Parks & Rec........................... 4,000 <50 200 500 <50 100 800 1,600 5,700 ...... 500 <50 ...... <50 <50 ...... ........ ...... ....... <50 13,500
32: Basic Skills & Developmental/Remedial 600 ...... ........ <50 ...... <50 500 ........ ........ ...... <50 ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 1,100
Education................................
33: Citizenship Activities................ <50 ...... ........ ....... ...... ........ ........ ........ ........ ...... ........ ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... <50
34: Health-Related Knowledge & Skills..... 100 ...... <50 0 ...... <50 100 ........ ........ ...... ........ ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 200
35: Interpersonal & Social Skills......... ........ ...... ........ ....... ...... 0 ........ ........ ........ ...... ........ ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 0
36: Leisure & Recreational Activities..... 200 ...... ........ <50 ...... ........ <50 ........ ........ ...... <50 ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 300
37: Personal Awareness & Self-Improvement. 100 <50 500 ....... ...... ........ ........ ........ ........ ...... ........ ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 600
38: Philosophy & Religious Studies........ 200 <50 <50 200 <50 200 ........ ........ 500 ...... 100 ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... <50 1,200
39: Theology & Religious Vocations........ <50 ...... ........ 2,300 200 1,700 ........ <50 3,200 ...... 900 300 300 ....... ...... 0 ........ ...... ....... ...... 8,900
40: Physical Sciences..................... 900 <50 100 100 ...... <50 0 <50 <50 ...... ........ ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... <50 1,200
41: Science Technologies/Technicians...... 2,200 <50 <50 <50 <50 ........ 100 100 ........ ...... ........ ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 2,400
42: Psychology............................ 2,700 300 1,400 400 200 2,200 ........ <50 20,300 <50 17,800 10,100 ...... 2,200 <50 ...... ........ ...... ....... <50 57,500
43: Homeland Security..................... 33,400 200 600 1,200 100 300 2,300 21,400 60,100 0 7,000 700 ...... 200 ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 127,500
44: Public Admin & Social Services........ 6,500 700 800 100 100 400 200 4,300 22,500 <50 10,100 4,400 ...... 100 ...... <50 ........ ...... ....... <50 50,100
45: Social Sciences....................... 3,200 400 700 500 100 500 ........ <50 6,100 ...... 1,400 700 ...... ....... <50 <50 ........ ...... ....... <50 13,600
46: Construction Trades................... 18,000 ...... ........ 1,800 ...... <50 8,300 900 ........ ...... ........ ....... ...... ....... <50 ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 28,900
[[Page 70110]]
47: Mechanic & Repair Technologies/ 48,800 0 <50 4,100 ...... ........ 59,200 10,400 <50 ...... ........ ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 122,600
Technicians..............................
48: Precision Production.................. 34,100 ...... ........ 2,500 ...... ........ 13,000 1,000 ........ ...... ........ ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 50,700
49: Transportation & Materials Moving..... 4,900 <50 <50 700 ...... ........ 9,500 200 ........ ...... <50 ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 15,300
50: Visual & Performing Arts.............. 15,000 100 300 2,100 200 400 2,600 7,700 29,700 0 3,100 ....... <50 <50 <50 <50 ........ ...... ....... <50 61,200
51: Health Professions & Related Programs. 275,000 1,800 7,400 43,100 1,900 7,800 229,100 148,200 139,600 <50 74,200 11,700 8,800 2,200 <50 <50 200 1,900 11,600 1,300 965,700
52: Business.............................. 95,500 1,700 4,300 4,100 700 4,500 9,800 70,500 226,500 400 74,200 9,200 100 2,900 <50 <50 ........ ...... ....... 100 504,300
53: High School/Secondary Diplomas........ <50 ...... ........ ....... ...... ........ <50 <50 ........ ...... ........ ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... ...... 100
54: History............................... 400 <50 <50 100 ...... ........ 0 200 2,200 ...... 900 ....... ...... 100 ...... <50 ........ ...... ....... ...... 3,900
60: Residency Programs.................... <50 <50 100 <50 <50 <50 100 ........ ........ ...... ........ ....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ........ ...... ....... <50 300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70111]]
Tables 2.6 and 2.7 show the student characteristics of title IV,
HEA students in non-GE and GE programs, respectively, by institutional
control, predominant degree of the institution, and credential level.
In all three types of institutional control, the majority of students
served by the programs are female students. At public non-GE programs,
out of all enrolled title IV, HEA students: 58 percent received a Pell
grant, 31 percent are 24 years or older, 36 percent are independent,
and 43 percent non-white. At non-GE programs at nonprofit private
institutions, 43 percent of students received a Pell Grant, 37 percent
are 24 years or older, 44 percent are independent, and 43 percent are
non-white. Sixty-eight percent of students in the average public GE
program ever received a Pell grant, 44 percent are 24 years or older,
50 percent are independent, and 46 percent are non-white. At for-profit
GE programs, 67 percent of students received a Pell grant, 66 percent
are 24 years or older, 72 percent are independent, and 59 percent are
non-white.
Table 2.6--Characteristics of Non-GE Students by Control, Predominant Degree, and Credential Level
[Enrollment-weighted]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of students who are . . .
Average EFC ----------------------------------------------------------
Age 24+ Male Pell Non-white Independent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less-Than 2-Year:
Associate........................ 5,700 36.4 37.2 73.8 41.8 41.7
Bachelor's....................... 10,600 59.4 40.6 54.0 37.4 62.6
Master's......................... 8,700 71.8 34.7 36.1 27.7 81.5
2-Year:
Associate........................ 5,800 29.6 37.5 74.1 49.3 34.8
Bachelor's....................... 9,300 48.3 41.3 69.4 40.3 55.6
Master's......................... 7,600 79.6 37.4 52.2 63.7 90.9
Professional..................... 5,800 100.0 33.3 33.3 .......... 100.0
4-Year or Above:
Associate........................ 7,600 36.5 37.8 67.0 39.7 42.2
Bachelor's....................... 16,600 24.0 43.3 47.3 39.8 27.0
Master's......................... 11,900 60.6 35.9 32.9 40.2 72.7
Doctoral......................... 10,400 69.9 41.4 28.0 44.1 84.1
Professional..................... 7,800 55.7 48.4 10.8 37.1 91.7
Total:
Total............................ 11,300 30.5 40.2 57.8 43.2 35.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private, Nonprofit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less-Than 2-Year:
Associate........................ 2,600 64.6 33.8 89.7 65.9 74.8
Bachelor's....................... 9,100 65.8 37.1 67.0 62.6 70.0
Master's......................... 9,200 52.2 30.7 37.7 56.3 61.4
Doctoral......................... 5,500 24.7 14.6 32.1 41.2 58.5
Professional..................... 4,600 52.0 54.6 1.9 39.6 97.1
2-Year:
Associate........................ 6,300 47.4 34.8 72.4 52.2 53.6
Bachelor's....................... 8,300 60.7 40.7 68.3 51.4 64.8
Master's......................... 9,600 86.5 34.0 28.9 69.9 89.2
Doctoral......................... 9,600 81.3 26.4 14.6 62.5 100.0
4-Year or Above:
Associate........................ 6,800 54.9 34.6 70.2 49.3 60.5
Bachelor's....................... 17,600 23.2 39.9 48.9 40.2 26.1
Master's......................... 13,100 67.3 35.3 25.0 45.9 78.0
Doctoral......................... 12,200 69.4 41.1 17.7 49.7 87.1
Professional..................... 9,200 57.2 48.8 10.1 43.0 89.1
Total:
Total............................ 15,400 37.3 39.0 43.3 42.6 43.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Average EFC values rounded to the nearest 100. Credential levels with very few programs and most table
elements missing are suppressed.
Table 2.7--Characteristics of GE Students by Control, Predominant Degree, and Credential Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of students who are . . .
Average EFC ----------------------------------------------------------
Age 24+ Male Pell Non-white Independent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less-Than 2-Year:
UG Certificates.................. 4,500 45.5 37.5 76.5 42.4 53.1
Post-BA Certs.................... 6,300 75.9 30.4 57.9 .......... 78.2
Grad Certs....................... 8,100 57.1 16.7 57.5 32.1 65.2
2-Year:
[[Page 70112]]
UG Certificates.................. 6,100 41.9 37.8 70.3 50.9 46.8
Post-BA Certs.................... 10,800 47.2 23.7 58.4 .......... 59.5
Grad Certs....................... 7,600 89.7 68.1 68.9 50.6 89.7
4-Year or Above:
UG Certificates.................. 23,300 28.5 41.6 36.8 32.3 31.8
Post-BA Certs.................... 11,500 60.5 31.6 35.9 .......... 71.3
Grad Certs....................... 10,700 69.8 30.1 39.2 36.2 79.0
Total:
Total............................ 7,100 43.7 37.6 68.3 45.7 49.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private, Nonprofit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less-Than 2-Year:
UG Certificates.................. 4,900 48.3 36.6 80.2 63.7 58.3
Post-BA Certs.................... 15,600 51.0 59.2 3.3 .......... 65.3
Grad Certs....................... 7,600 28.2 38.7 3.1 47.2 62.1
2-Year:
UG Certificates.................. 3,300 61.0 21.1 83.2 56.3 73.8
Post-BA Certs.................... 10,100 94.8 28.4 53.7 .......... 94.8
Grad Certs....................... 26,700 89.5 10.5 19.3 100.0 100.0
4-Year or Above:
UG Certificates.................. 10,500 37.4 35.8 66.4 65.8 42.1
Post-BA Certs.................... 14,200 60.1 31.8 36.0 .......... 68.5
Grad Certs....................... 11,500 70.8 32.8 29.8 44.5 80.3
Total:
Total............................ 8,300 55.1 32.3 60.6 57.3 64.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proprietary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less-Than 2-Year:
UG Certificates.................. 3,900 45.7 31.5 82.4 63.0 56.5
Associate........................ 5,900 56.6 32.2 80.6 63.2 63.7
Bachelor's....................... 4,200 54.2 36.9 86.5 83.3 57.3
Post-BA Certs.................... 9,100 70.7 44.7 36.8 .......... 77.2
Master's......................... 9,200 85.4 26.7 32.2 62.1 90.4
Doctoral......................... 9,800 98.6 19.2 32.0 47.6 99.7
Professional..................... 14,100 84.7 19.5 30.5 54.2 100.0
Grad Certs....................... 6,200 64.6 7.7 63.9 6.6 67.4
2-Year:
UG Certificates.................. 4,800 48.4 39.8 77.8 64.2 57.1
Associate........................ 5,700 51.8 33.3 77.8 60.6 58.1
Bachelor's....................... 7,900 61.6 42.7 70.5 65.0 67.9
Post-BA Certs.................... 13,400 86.4 25.0 39.4 .......... 86.4
Master's......................... 7,100 82.3 42.1 31.0 65.1 89.5
Doctoral......................... 0 0.0 0.0 100.0 .......... 0.0
Professional..................... 5,700 71.6 46.0 14.6 36.7 99.0
Grad Certs....................... 3,700 64.8 32.4 0.0 24.3 67.6
4-Year or Above:
UG Certificates.................. 5,400 77.7 22.1 76.2 55.4 84.3
Associate........................ 5,400 75.4 31.9 76.1 57.2 82.7
Bachelor's....................... 9,700 75.2 40.7 64.2 54.6 78.8
Post-BA Certs.................... 7,500 84.6 28.5 54.7 .......... 92.3
Master's......................... 11,300 82.3 30.2 38.8 58.0 85.8
Doctoral......................... 19,800 92.9 30.0 25.2 57.9 95.2
Professional..................... 7,100 89.0 25.7 47.1 34.1 93.2
Grad Certs....................... 11,900 88.6 27.1 38.2 63.2 90.7
Total:
Total............................ 7,700 66.1 34.7 67.3 58.8 72.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: EFC values rounded to the nearest 100.
Outcome Differences Across Programs
A large body of research provides strong evidence of the many
significant benefits that postsecondary education and training confers,
both private and social. Private pecuniary benefits include higher
wages and lower risk of unemployment.\218\ Increased educational
attainment also confers private nonpecuniary benefits, such as better
health, job satisfaction, and
[[Page 70113]]
overall happiness.\219\ Social benefits of higher or increased number
of individuals with a postsecondary education include productivity
spillovers from a better educated and more flexible workforce,\220\
increased civic participation,\221\ and improvements in health and
well-being for the next generation.\222\ Improved productivity and
earnings increase tax revenues from higher earnings and lower rates of
reliance on social safety net programs. Even though the costs of
postsecondary education have risen, there continues to be evidence that
the average financial returns to graduates have also generally
increased since at least the 1980s.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ Barrow, L., & Malamud, O. (2015). Is College a Worthwhile
Investment? Annual Review of Economics, 7(1), 519-555. Card, D.
(1999). The causal effect of education on earnings. Handbook of
labor economics, 3, 1801-1863.
\219\ Oreopoulos, P., & Salvanes, K.G. (2011). Priceless: The
Nonpecuniary Benefits of Schooling. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 25(1), 159-184.
\220\ Moretti, E. (2004). Workers' Education, Spillovers, and
Productivity: Evidence from Plant-Level Production Functions.
American Economic Review, 94(3), 656-690.
\221\ Dee, T.S. (2004). Are There Civic Returns to Education?
Journal of Public Economics, 88(9-10), 1697-1720.
\222\ Currie, J., & Moretti, E. (2003). Mother's Education and
the Intergenerational Transmission of Human Capital: Evidence from
College Openings. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1495-
1532.
\223\ Avery, C. & Turner, S. (2013). Student Loans: Do College
Students Borrow Too Much-Or Not Enough? Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 26(1), 165-192. Goldin, C. & Katz, L. (2008). The Race
Between Education and Technology. Harvard University Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, there is also substantial heterogeneity in earnings and
other outcomes for students who graduate from different types of
institutions and programs. Table 2.8 shows the enrollment-weighted
average borrowing and default by control and credential level. Mean
borrowing amounts are for title IV, HEA recipients who completed their
program in AY 2016 or 2017, with students who did not borrow counting
as having borrowed $0. For borrowing, our measure is the average for
each institutional control type and credential level combination of
program average debt. For default, our measure is, among borrowers
(regardless of completion status) who entered repayment in 2017, the
fraction of borrowers who have ever defaulted three years later. The
cohort default rate measure follows the methodology for the official
institutional cohort default rate measures calculated by the
Department, except done at the program level. Though average debt tends
to be higher for higher-level credential programs, default rates tend
to be lower. At the undergraduate level, average debt is much lower for
public programs than private nonprofit and for-profit programs and
default rates are lower for public and nonprofit programs than those at
for-profit institutions.
Table 2.8--Average Debt and Cohort Default Rate, by Control and
Credential Level
[Enrollment-weighted]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohort
Average debt default rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
UG Certificates..................... 5,759 16.9
Associate........................... 5,932 17.4
Bachelor's.......................... 17,935 7.6
Post-BA Certs....................... 7,352 2.3
Master's............................ 29,222 2.9
Doctoral............................ 71,102 2.9
Professional........................ 124,481 0.8
Grad Certs.......................... 24,883 2.5
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates..................... 9,367 12.0
Associate........................... 16,445 14.9
Bachelor's.......................... 20,267 7.3
Post-BA Certs....................... 9,497 2.8
Master's............................ 40,272 2.9
Doctoral............................ 128,998 2.3
Professional........................ 151,473 1.3
Grad Certs.......................... 40,732 2.4
Proprietary:
UG Certificates..................... 8,857 14.2
Associate........................... 18,766 15.3
Bachelor's.......................... 29,038 12.4
Post-BA Certs....................... 15,790 16.9
Master's............................ 39,507 4.1
Doctoral............................ 99,422 4.4
Professional........................ 96,836 0.7
Grad Certs.......................... 47,803 3.9
Foreign Private:
UG Certificates..................... (*) 0.0
Associate........................... (*) (*)
Bachelor's.......................... 17,074 7.0
Post-BA Certs....................... (*) (*)
Master's............................ 40,432 2.0
Doctoral............................ 22,600 3.5
Professional........................ 247,269 3.1
Grad Certs.......................... 284,200 0.2
Foreign For-Profit:
Master's............................ (*) 0.0
Doctoral............................ 84,200 1.4
[[Page 70114]]
Professional........................ 280,667 1.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Cell suppressed because it based on a population of fewer than 30.
Table 2.9 shows median earnings (in 2019 dollars) for graduates
(whether or not they borrow) along these same dimensions. Similar
patterns hold for earnings, with lower earnings in proprietary programs
than in public and nonprofit programs for almost all types of
credential level.
Table 2.9--Enrollment-Weighted Average of Program Median Earnings 3
Years After Program Completion, by Control and Credential Level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Median earnings 3
years after
completion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
UG Certificates.................................. 33,400
Associate........................................ 34,400
Bachelor's....................................... 46,100
Post-BA Certs.................................... 45,600
Master's......................................... 66,600
Doctoral......................................... 83,500
Professional..................................... 91,300
Grad Certs....................................... 71,500
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates.................................. 26,200
Associate........................................ 35,700
Bachelor's....................................... 48,800
Post-BA Certs.................................... 61,600
Master's......................................... 68,600
Doctoral......................................... 86,200
Professional..................................... 88,200
Grad Certs....................................... 74,800
Proprietary:
UG Certificates.................................. 25,400
Associate........................................ 34,600
Bachelor's....................................... 45,600
Post-BA Certs.................................... 43,500
Master's......................................... 59,300
Doctoral......................................... 78,000
Professional..................................... 49,200
Grad Certs....................................... 52,200
Foreign Private:
UG Certificates.................................. .................
Associate........................................ .................
Bachelor's....................................... 8,200
Post-BA Certs.................................... .................
Master's......................................... 38,600
Doctoral......................................... .................
Professional..................................... 88,400
Grad Certs....................................... 15,100
Foreign For-Profit:
Master's......................................... .................
Doctoral......................................... 65,900
Professional..................................... 100,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Values rounded to the nearest 100.
A growing body of research, described below, shows that differences
in institution and program quality are important contributors to the
variation in borrowing and earnings outcomes described above. That is,
differences in graduates' outcomes across programs are not fully (or
primarily) explained by the characteristics of the students that
attend. Differences in program quality--measured by the causal effect
of attending the program on its students' outcomes--are important.\224\
It is,
[[Page 70115]]
therefore, important to provide students with this information and to
hold programs accountable for high levels of student debt and poor
earnings outcomes. Research reviewed below also shows that GE programs
are the programs least likely to reliably provide an adequate return on
investment, from the perspective of both the student and society. These
findings imply that aggregate student outcomes--including their
earnings and likelihood of positive borrowing outcomes--would be
improved by limiting student enrollment in low-quality programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\224\ Black, Dan A. & Smith, Jeffrey A. (2006). Estimating the
Returns to College Quality with Multiple Proxies for Quality.
Journal of labor Economics 24.3: 701-728. Cohodes, Sarah R. &
Goodman, Joshua S. (2014). Merit Aid, College Quality, and College
Completion: Massachusetts' Adams Scholarship as an In-Kind Subsidy.
American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 6.4: 251-285. Andrews,
Rodney J., Li, Jing & Lovenheim, Michael F. (2016). Quantile
treatment effects of college quality on earnings. Journal of Human
Resources 51.1: 200-238. Dillon, Eleanor Wiske & Smith, Jeffrey
Andrew (2020). The Consequences of Academic Match Between Students
and Colleges. Journal of Human Resources 55.3: 767-808.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent study computed productivity--value-added per dollar of
social investment--for 6,700 undergraduate programs across the United
States.\225\ In that study, productivity was measured using both
private (individual earnings) and social (working in a public service
job) notions of value. A main finding was that productivity varied
widely even among institutions serving students of similar aptitude,
especially at less selective institutions. That is, a dollar spent
educating students does much more to increase lifetime earnings
potential and public service at some programs than others. The author
concludes that ``market forces alone may be too weak to discipline
productivity among these schools.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ Hoxby, C.M. (2019). The Productivity of US Postsecondary
Institutions. In Productivity in Higher Education, Hoxby, C.M. &
Stange, K.M. (eds). University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The finding of substantial variation in student outcomes across
programs serving similar students or at similar types of institutions
or in similar fields has been documented in many other more specific
contexts. These include community colleges in California,\226\ public
two- and four-year programs in Texas,\227\ master's degree programs in
Ohio,\228\ law and medical schools, and programs outside the United
States.\229\ Variation in institutional and program performance is a
dominant feature of postsecondary education in the United States.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\226\ Carrell, S.E. & Kurleander, M. (2019). Estimating the
Productivity of Community Colleges in Paving the Road to Four-Year
College Success. In Productivity in Higher Education, Hoxby, C.M. &
Stange, K.M. (eds). University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
\227\ Andrews, R.J. & Stange, K.M. (2019). Price Regulation,
Price Discrimination, and Equality of Opportunity in Higher
Education: Evidence from Texas. American Economic Journal: Economic
Policy, 11.4, 31-65. Andrews, R.J., Imberman, S.A., Lovenheim, M.F.
& Stange, K.M. (2022). The Returns to College Major Choice: Average
and Distributional Effects, Career Trajectories, and Earnings
Variability. NBER Working Paper w30331.
\228\ Minaya, V., Scott-Clayton, J. & Zhou, R.Y. (2022).
Heterogeneity in Labor Market Returns to Master's Degrees: Evidence
from Ohio (EdWorkingPaper: 22-629). Retrieved from Annenberg
Institute at Brown University: doi.org/10.26300/akgd<5011.
\229\ Hastings, J.S., Neilson, C.A. & Zimmerman, S.D. (2013).
Are Some Degrees Worth More than Others? Evidence from College
Admission Cutoffs in Chile. NBER Working Paper w19241.
\230\ A recent overview can be found in Lovenheim, M. & J. Smith
(2023). Returns to Different Postsecondary Investments: Institution
Type, Academic Programs, and Credentials. In Handbook of the
Economics of Education Volume 6, E. Hanushek, L. Woessmann & S.
Machin (eds). New Holland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The wide range of performance across programs and institutions
means that prospective students face a daunting information problem.
The questions of where to go and what to study are key life choices
with major consequences. But without a way to discern the differences
between programs through comparable, reliably reported measures of
quality, students may ultimately have to rely on crude signals about
the caliber of education a school offers.
Recent evidence demonstrates that information about colleges,
delivered in a timely and relevant way, can shape students' choices.
Students at one large school district were 20 percent more likely to
apply to colleges that have information listed on a popular college
search tool, compared with colleges whose information is not displayed
on the tool. A particularly important finding of the study is that for
Black, Hispanic, and low-income students, access to information about
local public four-year institutions increases overall attendance at
such institutions. This, the author argues, suggests ``that students
may have been unaware of these nearby and inexpensive options with high
admissions rates.'' \231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\231\ Mulhern, Christine (2021). Changing College Choices with
Personalized Admissions Information at Scale: Evidence on Naviance.
Journal of Labor Economics 39.1: 219-262.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This evidence reveals both the power of information to shape
student choices at critical moments in the decision process and how a
patchwork of information about colleges may result in students missing
out on opportunities. Given the variation in quality across programs
apparent in the research evidence outlined above, these missed
opportunities can be quite costly.
Unfortunately, the general availability of information does not
always mean students are able to find and use it. Indeed, evidence on
the initial impact of the Department's College Scorecard college
comparison tool found minimal effects on students' college choices,
with any possible effects concentrated among the highest achieving
students.\232\ But the contrast between these two pieces of evidence,
one where information affects college choices and one where it doesn't,
is instructive: while students generally must seek out the College
Scorecard during their college search process, the college search tool
from the first study delivers information to students as they are
taking other steps through the tool, from requesting transcripts and
recommendation letters to submitting applications. It tailors that
information to the student, providing information about where previous
students from the same high school have enrolled and what their
outcomes were. Accordingly, there is some basis to believe that
personalized information delivered directly to students at key decision
points from a credible source can have an impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\232\ Hurwitz, Michael & Smith, Jonathan (2018). Student
Responsiveness to Earnings Data in the College Scorecard. Economic
Inquiry 56.2: 1220-1243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To that end, the transparency component of these regulations
attempts to improve not only the quality of information available to
students (by newly collecting key facts about colleges), but also its
salience, relevance, and timing. Because this information will be
delivered directly to students who are reviewing financial aid packages
from colleges and programs which they are considering, students would
be likely to see the information and understand its credibility at a
time when they are likely to find it most useful for deciding if and
where to attend. Better still, the information would not be ambiguous
when the message is most critical: if a school is consistently failing
to put graduates on better financial footing, students are informed of
that fact before they make a financial commitment.
The Department has concluded that relying on just market-
disciplining role of information is not sufficient, and that regulation
beyond information provision alone is warranted. This conclusion is
based on evidence, reviewed below, that such regulations could reduce
the risk that students and taxpayers spend money toward programs that
will leave them worse off. Program performance is particularly varied
and concerning among the non-degree certificate programs offered by all
types of institutions, as well as at proprietary degree programs. These
are the programs where the Department's concerns about quality are at
their height, especially given the narrower career-focused nature of
the credentials offered in this part of the system.
[[Page 70116]]
Certificate programs are intended to prepare students for specific
vocations and have, on average, positive returns relative to not
attending college at all. Yet this aggregate performance masks
considerable variability: certificate program outcomes vary greatly
across programs, States, fields of study, and institutions,\233\ and
even within the same narrow field and within the same institution.\234\
Qualitative research suggests some of this outcome difference stems
from factors that providers directly control, such as how they engage
with industry and employers in program design and whether they
incorporate opportunities for students to gain relevant workforce
experience during the program.\235\ Unfortunately, many of the most
popular certificate programs do not result in returns on investment for
students who complete the program. An analysis of programs included in
the 2014 GE rule found that at 10 of the 15 certificate programs with
the most graduates, graduates had typical earnings of $18,000 or less,
well below what a typical high school graduate would earn.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\233\ Aspen Institute (2015). From College to Jobs: Making Sense
of Labor Market Returns to Higher Education. Washington, DC
(www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/labormarketreturns/).
\234\ Much of the research is summarized in Ositelu, M.O.,
McCann, C. & Laitinen, A. (2021). The Short-Term Credential
Landscape. New America: Washington, DC (www.newamerica.org/education-policy/repoerts/the-short-term-credentials-landscape).
\235\ Soliz, A. (2016). Preparing America's Labor Force:
Workforce Development Programs in Public Community Colleges.
Brookings: Washington, DC (www.brookings.edu/research/preparing-americas-labor-force-workforce-development-programs-in-public-community-colleges/).
\236\ Aspen Institute (2015). From College to Jobs: Making Sense
of Labor Market Returns to Higher Education. Washington, DC
(www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/labormarketreturns).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to non-degree programs at all types of institutions,
the final rule will subject for-profit degree programs to the
transparency framework in Sec. 668.43 and subpart Q, and the GE
program-specific eligibility requirements in subpart S. This additional
scrutiny, based in the requirements of the HEA, is warranted because
for-profit programs have demonstrated particularly poor outcomes, as
was shown in Tables 2.8 and 2.9 above. A large body of research
provides causal evidence on the many ways students at for-profit
colleges are at an economic disadvantage upon exiting their
institutions. This research base includes studies showing that students
who attend for-profit programs are significantly more likely to suffer
from poor employment prospects,\237\ low earnings,\238\ and loan
repayment difficulties.\239\ Students who transfer into for-profit
institutions instead of public or nonprofit institutions face
significant wage penalties.\240\ In some cases, researchers find
similar earnings or employment outcomes between for-profit and not-for-
profit associate and bachelor's degree programs.\241\ However, students
pay and borrow more to attend for-profit degree programs, on
average.\242\ The result of higher debt levels paired with lower or
equivalent earnings means students attending for-profit degree programs
have a worse overall return on investment. This evidence of lackluster
labor market outcomes accords with the growing evidence that many for-
profit programs may not be preparing students for careers as
effectively as comparable programs at public institutions. A 2011 GAO
report found that, for nine out of 10 licensing exams in the largest
fields of study, graduates of for-profit institutions had lower passage
rates than graduates of public institutions.\243\ These comparatively
poor outcomes may not be surprising, as many for-profit institutions
devote more resources to recruiting and marketing than to instruction
or student support services. A 2012 investigation by the U.S. Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (Senate HELP
Committee) found that almost 23 percent of revenues at proprietary
institutions were spent on marketing and recruiting but only 17 percent
on instruction.\244\ The report further found that at many
institutions, the number of recruiters greatly outnumbered the career
services and support services staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\237\ Deming, D.J., Yuchtman, N., Abulafi, A., Goldin, C. &
Katz, L.F. (2016). The Value of Postsecondary Credentials in the
Labor Market: An Experimental Study. American Economic Review,
106(3), 778-806.
\238\ Cellini, S.R. & Chaudhary, L. (2014). The Labor Market
Returns to a For-Profit College Education. Economics of Education
Review, 43, 125-140.
\239\ Armona, L., Chakrabarti, R. & Lovenheim, M.F. (2022).
Student Debt and Default: The Role of For-Profit Colleges. Journal
of Financial Economics, 144(1), 67-92.
\240\ Liu, V.Y.T. & Belfield, C. (2020). The Labor Market
Returns to For-Profit Higher Education: Evidence for Transfer
Students. Community College Review, 48(2), 133-155.
\241\ Lang, K. & Weinstein, R. (2013). The Wage Effects of Not-
For-Profit and For-Profit Certifications: Better Data, Somewhat
Different Results. Labour Economics, 24, 230-243.
\242\ Cellini, S.R. & Darolia, R. (2015). College Costs and
Financial Constraints. In Hershbein, B. & Hollenbeck, K. (ed).
Student Loans and the Dynamics of Debt (137-174). W.E. Upjohn
Institute for Employment Research: Kalamazoo, MI. Cellini, S.R. &
Darolia, R. (2017). High Costs, Low Resources, and Missing
Information: Explaining Student Borrowing in the For-Profit Sector.
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
671(1), 92-112.
\243\ Government Accountability Office (2011). Postsecondary
Education: Student Outcomes Vary at For-Profit, Nonprofit, and
Public Schools (GAO-12-143).
\244\ U.S. Senate, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee (July 30, 2012). For Profit Higher Education: The Failure
to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success.
Senate HELP Committee, July 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particularly strong evidence comes from a recent study that found
that the average undergraduate certificate-seeking student that
attended a for-profit institution did not experience any earnings gains
relative to the typical worker in a matched sample of high school
graduates. They also had significantly lower earnings gains than
students who attended certificate programs in the same field of study
at public institutions.\245\ Furthermore, the earnings gain for the
average for-profit certificate-seeking student was not sufficient to
compensate them for the amount of student debt taken on to attend the
program.\246\ At the same time, research also shows substantial
variation in earnings gains from title IV, HEA-eligible undergraduate
certificate programs by field of study,\247\ with students graduating
from cosmetology and personal services programs in all sectors
experiencing especially poor outcomes.\248\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\245\ Cellini, S.R. & Turner, N. (2019). Gainfully Employed?
Assessing the Employment and Earnings of For-Profit College Students
using Administrative Data. Journal of Human Resources, 54(2), 342-
370.
\246\ Id.
\247\ Lang, K. & Weinstein, R. (2013). The Wage Effects of Not-
For-Profit and For-Profit Certifications: Better Data, Somewhat
Different Results. Labour Economics, 24, 230-243.
\248\ Dadgar, M. & Trimble, M.J. (2015). Labor Market Returns to
Sub-Baccalaureate Credentials: How Much Does a Community College
Degree or Certificate Pay? Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 37(4), 399-418.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequences of Attending Low Financial Value Programs
Attending a postsecondary education or training program where the
typical student takes on debt that exceeds their capacity to repay can
cause substantial harm to borrowers. For instance, high debt may cause
students to delay certain milestones; research shows that high levels
of debt decreases students' long-term probability of marriage.\249\
Being overburdened by student loan payments can also reduce the
likelihood that borrowers will invest in their future. Research shows
that when students borrow more due to high tuition, they are less
likely to obtain a graduate
[[Page 70117]]
degree \250\ and less likely to take out a mortgage to purchase a home
after leaving college.\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\249\ Gicheva, D. (2016). Student Loans or Marriage? A Look at
the Highly Educated. Economics of Education Review, 53, 207-2016.
\250\ Chakrabarti, R., Fos, V., Liberman, A. & Yannelis, C.
(2023). Tuition, Debt, and Human Capital. The Review of Financial
Studies, 36(4), 1667-1702.
\251\ Mezza, A., Ringo, D., Sherlund, S. & Sommer, K. (2020).
Student Loans and Homeownership. Journal of Labor Economics, 38(1),
215-260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unmanageable debt can also have adverse financial consequences for
borrowers, including default on their student loans. For those who do
not complete a degree, more student debt may raise the probability of
bankruptcy.\252\ Borrowers who default on their loans face potentially
serious repercussions. Many aspects of borrowers' lives may be
affected, including their ability to sign up for utilities, obtain
insurance, or rent an apartment.\253\ The Department reports loans more
than 90 days delinquent or in default to the major national credit
bureaus, and being in default has been shown to be correlated with a
50-to-90-point drop in borrowers' credit scores.\254\ A defaulted loan
can remain on borrowers' credit reports for up to seven years and lead
to higher costs that make insurance, housing, and other services and
financial products less affordable and, in some cases, harm borrowers'
ability to get a job.\255\ Borrowers who default also lose access to
some repayment options and flexibilities. At the same time, their full
balances are accelerated and become due immediately, and borrowers
become subject to involuntary collections such as administrative wage
garnishment and Treasury offset which can result in the redirection of
income tax refunds toward the defaulted loan.\256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\252\ Gicheva, D. & Thompson, J. (2015). The Effects of Student
Loans on Long-Term Household Financial Stability. In Hershbein, B. &
Hollenbeck, K. (ed.). Student Loans and the Dynamics of Debt (137-
174). W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research: Kalamazoo, MI.
\253\ Federal Student Aid. Student Loan Delinquency and Default
(studentaid.gov/manage-loans/default).
\254\ Blagg, K. (2018). Underwater on Student Debt:
Understanding Consumer Credit and Student Loan Default. Urban
Institute Research Report.
\255\ Elliott, D. & Granetz Lowitz, R. (2018). What Is the Cost
of Poor Credit? Urban Institute Report. Corbae, D., Glover, A. &
Chen, D. (2013). Can Employer Credit Checks Create Poverty Traps?
2013 Meeting Papers, No. 875, Society for Economic Dynamics.
\256\ Federal Student Aid. Student Loan Delinquency and Default
(studentaid.gov/manage-loans/default).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research shows that borrowers who attend for-profit institutions
have higher student loan default rates than students with similar
characteristics who attend public institutions.\257\ Furthermore, most
of the rise in student loan default rates from 2000 to 2011 can be
traced to increases in enrollment in for-profit institutions and, to a
lesser extent, two-year public institutions.\258\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\257\ Deming, D., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (2012). The For-Profit
Postsecondary School Sector: Nimble Critters or Agile Predators?
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 139-164. Hillman, N.W.
(2014). College on Credit: A Multilevel Analysis of Student Loan
Default. Review of Higher Education 37(2), 169-195.
\258\ Looney, A. & Yannelis, C. (2015). A Crisis in Student
Loans? How Changes in the Characteristics of Borrowers and in the
Institutions They Attended Contributed to Rising Loan Defaults.
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2, 1-89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low loan repayment also has consequences for taxpayers. Calculating
the precise magnitude of these costs would require decades of realized
repayment periods for millions of borrowers. However, Table 2.10 shows
estimates of the share of disbursed loans that will not be repaid based
on simulated debt and earnings trajectories at each program in the 2022
PPD under the income-driven repayment Saving on a Valuable Education
(SAVE) plan announced in June 2023.\259\ These estimates incorporate
the subsidy coming from the features of the repayment plan itself
(capped payments, forgiveness), not accounting for default or
delinquency. Starting with the median earnings and debt at each
program, the Department simulated typical repayment trajectories for
each program with data available for both measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\259\ The White House (June 30, 2023). Fact Sheet: President
Biden Announces New Actions to Provide Debt Relief and Support for
Student Loan Borrowers (www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/06/30/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-provide-debt-relief-and-support-for-student-loan-borrowers/ borrowers/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using U.S. Census Bureau (Census) microdata on earnings and family
formation for a nationally representative sample of individuals, the
Department projected the likely repayment experience of borrowers at
each program assuming all were enrolled in the SAVE plan (which can be
found at 88 FR 43820).\260\ Starting from the median earnings level of
each program, the projections incorporate the estimated earnings growth
over the life course through age sixty for individuals starting from
the same earnings level in a given State. The projections also include
likely spousal earnings, student debt, and family size of each borrower
(also derived from the Census data), which makes it possible to
calculate the total amount repaid by borrowers under each plan when
paying in full each month (even if that means making a payment of $0).
The simulation incorporates different demographic and income groups
probabilistically due to important non-linearities in plan structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\260\ These estimates of the subsidy rate are not those used in
the budget and do not factor in take-up. Rather, they show the
predicted subsidy rates under the assumption that all students are
enrolled in SAVE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.10 shows that, among all programs, students who attend
programs that fall below the debt-to-earnings standard are consistently
projected to repay less on their loans, in present value terms, than
they borrowed.\261\ This is true regardless of whether a program is in
the public, private nonprofit, or proprietary sector. The projected
repayment ratio is even lower for programs that only fail the EP
measure because at very low earnings levels, students are expected to
make zero-dollar payments over extended periods of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\261\ As explained in more detail later, the Department computed
D/E and EP metrics only for those programs with 30 or more students
who completed the program during the applicable two-year cohort
period--that is, those programs that met the minimum cohort size
requirements.
Table 2.10--Predicted Ratio of Dollars Repaid to Dollars Borrowed by
Control and Passage Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicted repayment
ratio under SAVE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
No D/E or EP data............................ 0.54
Pass......................................... 0.72
Fail D/E (regardless of EP).................. 0.29
Fail EP only................................. 0.13
Private, Nonprofit:
No D/E or EP data............................ 0.69
[[Page 70118]]
Pass......................................... 0.96
Fail D/E (regardless of EP).................. 0.36
Fail EP only................................. 0.19
Proprietary:
No D/E or EP data............................ 0.43
Pass......................................... 0.80
Fail D/E (regardless of EP).................. 0.25
Fail EP only................................. 0.08
Total:
No D/E or EP data............................ 0.58
Pass......................................... 0.77
Fail D/E (regardless of EP).................. 0.29
Fail EP only................................. 0.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our analysis, provided in more detail in ``Analysis of the
Regulations,'' shows that for many GE programs, the typical graduate
earns less than the typical worker with only a high school diploma or
has debt payments that are higher than is considered manageable given
typical earnings. As we show below, high rates of student loan default
are especially common among GE programs that are projected to fail
either the D/E rates or the earnings premium metric. Furthermore, low
earnings can cause problems in aspects of a graduate's financial life
beyond those related to loan repayment. In 2019, US individuals between
ages 25 and 34 who had any type of postsecondary credential reported
much higher rates of material hardship if their annual income was below
the high school earnings threshold, with those below the threshold
reporting being food insecure and behind on bills at more than double
the rate of those with earnings above the threshold.\262\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\262\ These findings come from ED's analysis of the 2019 Survey
of Income and Program Participation. This analysis compares
individuals with annual income below the 2019 U.S. National median
income for individuals with a high school diploma aged 25-34 who had
positive earnings or reported looking for work in the previous year,
according to the Census Bureau's ACS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the low earnings, high debt, and student loan repayment
difficulties for students in some GE programs, the Department has
identified a risk that students may be spending their time and money
and taking on Federal debt to attend programs that do not provide
sufficient value to justify these costs. While even very good programs
will have some students who struggle to obtain employment or repay
their student loans, the metrics identify programs where the majority
of students experience adverse financial outcomes upon completion.
Although enrollment in for-profit and sub-baccalaureate programs
has declined following the Great Recession, past patterns suggest that
future economic downturns could reverse this trend. For-profit
institutions have shown to be more responsive than public and nonprofit
institutions to changes in economic conditions \263\ and during the
COVID-19 pandemic, it was the only sector to see increases in student
enrollment.\264\ Additionally, research shows that reductions in State
and local funding for public higher education institutions tend to
shift college students into the for-profit sector.\265\ During economic
downturns, this response is especially relevant since State and local
funding is procyclical, falling during recessions even as student
demand is increasing.\266\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\263\ Deming, D., Goldin, C. & Katz, L. (2012). The For-Profit
Postsecondary School Sector: Nimble Critters or Agile Predators?
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 139-164. Gilpin, G.A.,
Saunders, J. & Stoddard, C. (2015). Why Has For-Profit Colleges'
Share of Higher Education Expanded So Rapidly? Estimating the
Responsiveness to Labor Market Changes. Economics of Education
Review, 45, 53-63.
\264\ Cellini, S.R. (2020). The Alarming Rise in For-Profit
College Enrollment. Brookings Institution: Washington, DC.
\265\ Cellini, S.R. (2009). Crowded Colleges and College Crowd-
Out: The Impact of Public Subsidies on the Two-Year College Market.
American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 1(2), 1-30. Goodman, S.
& Volz, A.H. (2020). Attendance Spillovers between Public and For-
Profit Colleges: Evidence from Statewide Variation in Appropriations
for Higher Education. Education Finance and Policy, 15(3), 428-456.
\266\ Ma, J. & Pender, M. (2022). Trends in College Pricing and
Student Aid 2022. College Board: New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For-profit institutions that participate in title IV, HEA programs
are also more reliant on Federal student aid than public and nonprofit
institutions. In recent years, around 70 percent of revenue received by
for-profit institutions came from Pell grants and Federal student
loans.\267\ For-profit institutions also have substantially higher
tuition than public institutions offering similar degrees. In recent
years, average for-profit tuition and fees charged by two-year for-
profit institutions were over 4 times the average tuition and fees
charged by community colleges.\268\ Research suggests that Federal
student aid supports for-profit expansions and higher prices.\269\ One
study finds that for-profit programs in institutions that participate
in title IV, HEA programs charge tuition that is approximately 80
percent higher than tuition charged by programs in the same field and
with similar outcomes in nonparticipating for-profit institutions.\270\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\267\ Cellini, S. & Koedel, K. (2017). The Case for Limiting
Federal Student Aid to For-Profit Colleges. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 36(4), 934-942.
\268\ NCES (2022). Digest of Education Statistics (Table 330.10)
(available at nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_330.10.asp).
\269\ Cellini, S.R. (2010). Financial Aid and For-Profit
Colleges: Does Aid Encourage Entry? Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 29(3), 526-552. Lau, C.V. (2014). The Incidence of
Federal Subsidies in For-Profit Higher Education. Unpublished
manuscript. Northwestern University: Evanston, IL.
\270\ Cellini, S.R. & Goldin, C. (2014). Does Federal Student
Aid Raise Tuition? New Evidence on For-Profit Colleges. American
Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(4), 174-206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A commonly expressed concern with past GE regulations is that if
programs lose title IV, HEA aid eligibility due to the rule's sanctions
this might result in a loss of education options for disadvantaged
students. Past research has shown that for-profit institutions do
indeed disproportionately enroll students with barriers to
postsecondary access--low-income, non-white, and older students, as
well as students who are veterans, single parents, or have a
[[Page 70119]]
General Equivalency Degree.\271\ Evidence from prior research and our
analyses presented in this RIA, however, suggests that sanctioning low-
performing programs would not reduce access to good quality programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\271\ Deming, D., Goldin, C. & Katz, L. (2012). The For-Profit
Postsecondary School Sector: Nimble Critters or Agile Predators?
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 139-164. Cellini, S.R. &
Darolia, R. (2015). College Costs and Financial Constraints. In
Hershbein, B. & Hollenbeck, K. (ed). Student Loans and the Dynamics
of Debt (137-174). W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research:
Kalamazoo, MI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, in the 1990s, sanctions related to high cohort default
rates led a large number of for-profit institutions to close,
significantly reducing enrollment in this sector.\272\ Yet, these
actions did not reduce access to higher education. Instead, a large
share of students who would have attended a sanctioned for-profit
institution instead enrolled in local open access public institutions
and, as a result, took on less student debt and were less likely to
default.\273\ Similar conclusions were reached in recent studies of
students who experienced program closures.\274\ Better evidence is now
available on the enrollment outcomes of students who would otherwise
attend sanctioned or closed schools than when the 2014 GE Rule was
considered. Further, as shown in the RIA section ``Alternative Options
Exist for Students to Enroll in High-Value Programs,'' most students
who enroll in a GE program projected to fail the D/E rates or EP
measure have better options available to them at the same or nearby
institutions, and the graduates of these programs bend to have higher
earnings and less debt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\272\ Darolia, R. (2013). Integrity Versus Access? The Effect of
Federal Financial Aid Availability on Postsecondary Enrollment.
Journal of Public Economics, 106, 101-114.
\273\ Cellini, S.R., Darolia, R. & Turner, L.J. (2020). Where Do
Students Go When For-Profit Colleges Lose Federal Aid? American
Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 12(2), 46-83.
\274\ See Government Accountability Office (2022). College
Closures: Education Should Improve Outreach to Borrowers about Loan
Discharges (GAO-22-104403) (www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104403).
State Higher Ed. Executive Officers Ass'n (2022). More than 100,000
Students Experienced an Abrupt Campus Closure Between July 2004 and
June 2020 (sheeo.org/more-than-100000-students-experienced-an-abrupt-campus-closure-between-july-2004-and-june-2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Summary of Comments and Changes From the NPRM
Table 1--Summary of Key Changes in the Final Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provision Regulatory section Description of change from NPRM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date, Extent, and Consequence of Sec. 600.10(c).................... Repositioning Sec.
Eligibility. 600.10(c)(1)(v) to Sec.
600.10(c)(3), with a slight
rewording for additional clarity.
Definitions........................... Sec. 668.2........................ Updating definition of ``cohort
period'' to extend the earnings
measurement period for qualifying
graduate programs beyond medical
and dental programs.
Updating definition of ``earnings
threshold'' to specifically
reference Census Bureau data.
Updating definition of ``earnings
threshold'' to clarify that
national earnings are used if
fewer than 50 percent of the
students in the program come from
the State where the institution
is located, rather than where the
students are located while
enrolled.
Updating definition of
Institutional Grants and
Scholarships for clarity.
Adding a new definition of
``qualifying graduate program''
to establish an extended earnings
measurement period for certain
graduate programs beyond medical
and dental programs.
Adding a new definition of
``substantially similar
program.''
Removing references to ``title IV
loan'' and uses ``Direct Loan
Program loan'' that is already
defined.
Institutional and Programmatic Sec. Sec. 668.43(d), 668.407, and Specifying that the program
Information and Student 668.605. information website requirements
Acknowledgments. and the acknowledgment
requirements are not applicable
until July 1, 2026.
Institutional and Programmatic Sec. 668.43(a)(5)(v) and (d)(1)... Removing the requirement for an
Information. institution to post a list of
States where a program meets or
does not meet applicable State
licensure requirements, in
expectation that this provision
will be published under a
separate final rule.
Revising Sec. 668.43(d) to refer
to the Department's website as
the ``program information
website'' rather than the
``disclosure website.'' We have
also made conforming revisions to
Sec. 668.605(c)(2) and (3) by
changing the reference from
``disclosure website'' to
``program information website.
Revising the list of information
items to include a list of the
minimum elements that the
Secretary must include on the
program information website and
an example list of supplemental
information the Secretary may
additionally include.
Removing the link to the College
Navigator website from the list
of required information items.
Financial Value Transparency Scope and Sec. 668.401...................... Adding Sec. 668.401(b)(1) to
Purpose. exempt institutions located in
U.S. Territories or the freely
associated states from the
provisions of subpart Q other
than reporting requirements under
Sec. 668.408, noting that the
informational requirements at
Sec. 668.43 also continue to
apply.
Adding Sec. 668.401(b)(2) to
exempt from subpart Q
institutions that offered no
groups of substantially similar
programs with 30 or more
completers over the four most
recently completed award years.
Process for Obtaining Data and Sec. 668.405(b)(1)(iii)........... Revising to clarify that an
Calculating D/E Rates and Earnings institution can correct the
Premium Measure. information about the students on
the completer list or provide
evidence showing that a student
should be included or removed
from the list no later than 60
days after the date the Secretary
provides the list to the
institution.
Student Acknowledgments............... Sec. 668.407(a)(1), (b)(3), (c), Revising to exempt undergraduate
and (d). degree programs from the
acknowledgment requirements.
Revising to require a student in
high-debt-burden non-GE program
to provide an acknowledgment
before the institution enters
into an agreement to enroll the
student, rather than before the
institution may disburse title
IV, HEA funds.
Revising to clarify that the
Department monitors an
institution's compliance with the
student acknowledgment
requirements through audits,
program reviews, or other
investigations.
Revising to clarify that the
acknowledgment requirements apply
annually if the program has
failing rates for the most recent
year calculated, and continue to
apply for three years if no new
rates are calculated.
Revising to specify that the
provision of an acknowledgement
will not be considered
``dispositive'' evidence in any
borrower defense claim.
Reporting Requirements................ Sec. 668.408(a) and (c)........... Revising to limit the reporting
requirements to institutions
offering any program with at
least 30 total completers during
the four most recently completed
award years.
Expanding the transitional
reporting and rates option from
non-GE programs to all programs.
[[Page 70120]]
Clarifying that the transitional
reporting and rates option
applies for the first six years
the regulation is in effect.
Gainful Employment Scope and Purpose.. Sec. 668.601(b)................... Adding Sec. 668.601(b)(1) to
exempt institutions located U.S.
Territories or the freely
associated states from the
provisions of subpart S.
Adding Sec. 668.601(b)(2) to
exempt from subpart S
institutions that offered no
groups of substantially similar
programs with 30 or more
completers over the four most
recently completed award years.
Gainful Employment Criteria........... Sec. 668.602(d) and (g)........... Revising to clarify that in
determining a program's
eligibility, the Secretary
disregards any failing D/E rates
and earnings premiums that were
calculated more than five
calculation years prior.
Student Warnings...................... Sec. 668.605(h)................... Revising to specify that the
provision of a warning will not
be considered ``dispositive''
evidence in any borrower defense
claim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
Comments: One commenter questioned why the Department's RIA data
were less complete for nonprofit institutions than similarly provided
data under the 2014 GE rules. The commenter also wondered what data
motivated the extra regulation of for-profit institutions relative to
nonprofit schools.
Discussion: The commenter did not specify how they determined that
the data for nonprofit institutions were less complete in the NPRM RIA
relative to the 2014 rule. Nonetheless, the Department provided the
available data, subject to privacy standards as part of the NPRM.
Moreover, the additional scrutiny of for-profit institutions is
warranted because for-profit programs have demonstrated particularly
poor outcomes. A large body of research provides causal evidence on the
many ways students at for-profit institutions are economically
disadvantaged upon exiting their institutions, as we described in the
``Need for Regulatory Action'' section above.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters stated that the NPRM RIA's comparison of
failure rates of public and nonprofit certificate programs to those of
proprietary programs was misleading because many public and nonprofit
programs are too small to have sufficient data to calculate metrics.
Discussion: Under the rule, only programs with sufficient data will
be subject to failure. Therefore, the NPRM RIA contained an accurate
description of the share of programs that fail.
Changes: None.
Benefits and Costs--RIA
Comments: One commenter questioned whether the benefits of the
regulations would exceed the costs, claiming that the in the NPRM, the
Department did not provide specific data and evidence about net
benefits, did not consider negative impacts on students and
institutions, provided an incomplete assessment of costs associated
with implementing the regulations, and did not consider the
perspectives of students, institutions, and other stakeholders who
would be directly affected by the regulation.
Discussion: The Department disagrees that the NPRM failed to
consider these elements. We included extensive discussion of potential
impacts on students and institutions (for example, see the ``Discussion
of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers'' in the NPRM). The NPRM also
included a robust discussion of the costs associated with implementing
the regulations, including discussion of costs associated with the
reporting, disclosure, and acknowledgment requirements (see the ``Costs
to Institutions'' section of the NPRM). In addition, the NPRM was
issued after a negotiated rulemaking process in which a diverse set of
stakeholders participated, including representatives from accrediting
agencies, civil rights organizations, consumer advocacy groups,
financial aid administrators, institutions of higher education (public
four-year and two-year, minority-serving, proprietary, private
nonprofit), State attorneys general, and U.S. military service groups.
Changes: None.
Data Used in This RIA
Comments: Several commenters noted that the NPRM RIA considered
information that differed in certain ways from the data measurement
that the Department proposed to use in the rule, including: that the
RIA analyzed programs at the 4-digit CIP code level; used 2010 CIP
codes; used data from earlier cohorts; used State-level earnings
thresholds even in cases when more than half of a program's students
are out-of-State, did not evaluate medical professional programs that
have post-graduation residency requirements, and did not provide 4-year
completer cohort data. Some commenters further noted that the data used
to calculate D/E in the NPRM RIA did not include private education loan
data or cap the loan debt by an amount equivalent to cost of attendance
less institutional grants. Some of these commenters claimed that this
omission particularly harms cosmetology schools or that the NPRM RIA
does not offer institutions a way to fully understand the potential
impact of the regulations on their programs.
Discussion: We used the best available data in the NPRM RIA and in
the RIA for the final rule to analyze the implications of the rule, and
in these, and other comments, commenters did not suggest alternative
sources of data that could be used to evaluate the rule proposed in the
NPRM or in the final rule. Additionally, we described in detail the
differences between data used for modeling and data used in the final
rule, and when possible, included a discussion of expected differences
in coverage between the NPRM RIA and the final rule. For example, the
NPRM RIA estimated that for GE programs, an additional 8 percent of
enrollment and 11 percent of programs would likely have metrics
computed using a 4-year completer cohort but did not have metrics
computed using a 2-year completer cohort. For eligible non-GE programs,
the use of four-year cohort rates likely increases coverage rates of
enrollment and programs by 13 and 15 percent, respectively.\275\ To the
extent that commenters seek perfect data that perfectly predict the
effects of the rule, that is neither feasible nor the applicable legal
standard. Further, institutions have ready access to data that would
allow them to identify debt levels for students in their programs, and
it is not unreasonable to expect institutions to have a sense of
students' earnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\275\ See ``Data Used in this RIA'' and ``Analysis of Data
Coverage'' from the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated their appreciation for providing
analysis of programs in 2-year cohorts, but a few commenters were
concerned about the lack of information related to 4-year cohorts. A
specific concern of the latter/
[[Page 70121]]
these commenter(s) was that the RIA in the NPRM might have understated
the number of programs that might be affected by the regulations.
Discussion: The data we used in the NPRM RIA was the best data
available to analyze the implications of the rule. We included an
estimate in the NPRM RIA of the share of enrollment in programs that
would be covered under the four-year cohort approach (see, for example,
Table 3.2 of the NPRM).
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter claimed that they were unable to recreate
or identify the source data for data used in the NPRM RIA. A few other
commenters claimed that the PPD 2022 differed from other data, such as
the College Scorecard or previously released data.
Discussion: We fulsomely documented the data used in the NPRM RIA
analysis and in supplementary documentation posted on the Department's
website and regulations.gov. Under the ``Data Used in this RIA''
section of the NPRM, the RIA explains that the data used non-public
records contained in Department administrative systems, earnings data
produced by the U.S. Treasury, and data from the Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Postsecondary Education
Participants System (PEPS), and the College Scorecard, and further
explained, in the following pages, how we constructed each data field.
Further, the Data Codebook and Description provide detailed
descriptions of the exact source of each variable and differences from
previously released data.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\276\ See www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2021/nprm-2022ppd-description.pdf and www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2021/nprm-2022ppd-codebook.xlsx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter indicated that the 2022 PPD data released
along with the NPRM does not match with their college's internal data.
The commenter further conducted a survey of some graduates in one their
programs and among respondents, found higher median earnings than was
included in the PPD. Further, the commenter claimed that the 2022 PPD
included more completers than the college's internal data and had a
different number of bachelor's programs.
Discussion: The Department used administrative IRS data from tax
filings, which we believe to be the most accurate source of data on
student earnings available. While graduate surveys can provide useful
information about student outcomes, such data can be subject to
response bias (and that is possible in this case where only a portion
of borrowers volunteered self-reported earnings information). Related
to accuracy of completers and programs, the rule allows institutions to
review and correct completer lists to review for and promote accuracy
(see Sec. 668.405).
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters asserted, for different reasons, that the
PPD was in some way flawed. One commenter noted that only a fraction of
the programs in the PPD file include data, and that this is too small a
fraction of programs nationwide to analyze and use for the basis of a
rule.
The other commenter noted that the PPD file contains fewer programs
than the equivalent College Scorecard program file, even though they
measure the same cohort. The same commenter opined that the PPD was not
a valid source of data, because for programs that exist in both data
sources, the earnings data are substantially different.
Discussion: The Department understands that not all programs
include data that can be analyzed for the purposes of the final rule.
However, we believe that the degree to which student enrollment
concentrates in larger programs mitigates the concerns noted by the
commenter. The number of students who enroll in programs large enough
to produce data is the more relevant measure of the rule's
effectiveness, in our opinion. As shown in the RIA, we estimate that
the majority of enrolled students, approximately 83 percent, are
enrolled in programs that would be covered by existing data.
The Department is aware of the differences in how the PPD and the
College Scorecard universes of programs and data are constructed. As
noted in the rule and in the RIA, the coverage of programs is
different, and the two datasets should not be expected to be the same.
A primary reason why the PPD has fewer programs is that the sample
frame is different: the PPD is limited to programs with completers in
the 2015-2017 academic years and who are currently in operation based
on the Postsecondary Education Participation System (PEPS) data as of
March 25, 2022.
The methodology for calculating median debt differ in the two data
sources because in the College Scorecard, median debt is measured only
among borrowers, whereas in the PPD programs that have completers who
graduate with debt have those students' lack of debt factored into
their median debt amounts.
The Department disputes the fact that the earnings measures differ
substantially between the College Scorecard and the PPD. The same data
file forms the basis of both the Scorecard and the PPD earnings
measures for 3-year earnings among students who are not enrolled. It is
worth noting that the not-enrolled population that forms the basis of
the 3-year program-level measure in the Scorecard is a different sample
of students than the 1- and 4-year measures at the program level, which
are calculated only for the working and not-enrolled population of
graduates from each program. This may explain any confusion commenters
have about comparability of measures, as commenters noted inconsistency
across earnings horizons (arguing that the data showed an implausible
jump from the three- to four-year measurement period. This disparity
results from different measurement populations and is not a sign of
mismeasurement. When examining program earnings for the same cohorts
and measurement periods for the programs present in both samples, they
differ only by a small inflation adjustment that serves to construct
the GE measures properly to best approximate the true structure of the
rule when implemented. For reasons explained in the NPRM, median debt
in the rule (and hence the PPD) is based on all graduates regardless of
whether they borrow. Similarly, median earnings are measured using all
graduates regardless of whether they are employed.
Changes: None.
4. Analysis of the Financial Value Transparency and GE Regulations
This section presents a detailed analysis of the likely
consequences of the Financial Value Transparency and GE provisions of
the final regulations.
Methodology
Data Used in This RIA
This section describes the data referenced in this regulatory
impact analysis. To generate information on the performance of
different postsecondary programs offered in different higher education
sectors, the Department relied on data on the program enrollment,
demographic characteristics, borrowing levels, post-completion
earnings, and borrower outcomes of students who received title IV, HEA
aid for their studies. The Department produced program performance
information, using measures based on the typical debt levels and post-
enrollment earnings of program completers, from non-public records
contained in the administrative systems the Department uses to
administer the title IV, HEA programs along with earnings data produced
by
[[Page 70122]]
the U.S. Treasury. This performance information was supplemented with
information from publicly available sources including the Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Postsecondary Education
Participants System (PEPS), and the College Scorecard. The data used
for the State earnings thresholds come from the Census Bureau's 2019
ACS, while statistics about the price level used to adjust for
inflation come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price
Index. This section describes the data used to produce this program
performance information and notes several differences from the measures
used for this purpose and the D/E rates and earning premium measures
set forth in the rule, as well as differences from the data
disseminated during negotiated rulemaking. The data described below are
referred to as the ``2022 Program Performance Data (2022 PPD),'' where
2022 refers to the year the programs were indicated as active. The data
are unchanged from that used in the NPRM RIA, and those data were
released with the NPRM.\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ To protect student privacy, we applied certain protocols
to the publicly released 2022 PPD and therefore that dataset differs
somewhat from the 2022 PPD analyzed in this RIA. Such protocols
include omitting the values of variables derived from fewer than 30
students. For instance, the title IV enrollment in programs with
fewer than 30 students is used to determine the number and share of
enrollment in GE programs in this RIA, while the exact program-level
enrollment of such programs is omitted in the public 2022 PPD. The
privacy protocols are described in the data documentation
accompanying the NPRM. The Department would not have reached
different conclusions on the impact of the regulation or on the
proposed rules if we had instead relied on the privacy-protective
dataset, though the Department views analysis based on the 2022 PPD
and described in this regulation to provide a more precise
representation of such impact. We view the differences in the
analyses as substantively minor for purposes of this rulemaking. As
described in the final rule, institutions that do not have enough
students completing over the most recent four award years to permit
the Department to calculate metrics will be exempt--these programs
are listed as ``no data'' in the public PPD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule relies on non-public measures of the cumulative
borrowing and post-completion earnings of federally aided title IV, HEA
students, including both grant and loan recipients. The Department has
information on all title IV, HEA grant and loan recipients at all
institutions participating in the title IV, HEA programs, including the
identity of the specific programs in which students are enrolled and
whether students complete the program. This information is stored in
the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS), maintained by the
Department's Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA).
Using this enrollment and completion information, in conjunction
with non-public student loan information also stored in NSLDS, and
earnings information obtained from Treasury, the Department calculated
annual and discretionary debt-to-earnings (D/E) ratios, or rates, for
all title IV, HEA programs. The Department also calculated the median
earnings of high school graduates aged 25 to 34 in the labor force in
the State where the program is located using public data, which is
referred to as the Earnings Threshold (ET). This ET is compared to a
program's graduates' annual earnings to determine the Earnings Premium
(EP), the extent to which a programs' graduates earn more than the
typical high school graduate in the same State. The methodology that
was used to calculate D/E rates, the ET, and the EP is described in
further detail below. In addition to the D/E rates and earnings data,
we also calculated informational outcome measures, including program-
level cohort default rates, to evaluate the likely consequences of the
final rule.
In our analysis, we identify a program by a unique combination
consisting of the first six digits of its institution's Office of
Postsecondary Education Identification (OPEID) number, also referred to
as the six-digit OPEID, the program's 2010 Classification of
Instructional Programs (CIP) code, and the program's credential level.
The terms OPEID number, CIP code, and credential level are defined
below. Throughout, we distinguish ``GE Programs'' from those that are
not subject to the GE provisions of the final rule, referred to as
``non-GE Programs.'' The 2022 PPD includes information for 155,582
programs that account for more than 19 million title IV, HEA
enrollments annually in award years 2016 and 2017. This includes
2,931,000 enrollments in 32,058 GE Programs (certificate programs at
all institution types, and degree programs at proprietary institutions)
and 16,337,000 enrollments in 123,524 non-GE Programs (degree programs
at public and private not-for-profit institutions).
We calculated the performance measures in the 2022 PPD for all
programs based on the debt and earnings of the cohort of students who
both received title IV, HEA program funds, including Federal student
loans and Pell grants, and completed programs during an applicable two-
year cohort period. Consistent with the final rule, students who do not
complete their program are not included in the calculation of the
metrics. The annual loan payment component of the debt-to-earnings
formulas for the 2022 PPD D/E rates was calculated for each program
using student loan information from NSLDS for students who completed
their program in award years 2016 or 2017 (i.e., between July 1, 2015,
and June 30, 2017--we refer to this group as the 16/17 completer
cohort). The earnings components of the rates were calculated for each
program using information obtained from Treasury for students who
completed between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016 (the 15/16 completer
cohort), whose earnings were measured in calendar years 2018 and 2019.
Programs were excluded from the 2022 PPD if they were operated by
an institution that was not currently active in the Department's PEPS
system as of March 25, 2022, if the program did not have a valid
credential type, or if the program did not have title IV, HEA
completers in both the 15/16 and 16/17 completer cohorts.
Consistent with the regulations, the Department computed D/E and EP
metrics in the 2022 PPD only for non-exempted programs with 30 or more
students who completed the program during the applicable two-year
cohort period--that is, those programs that met the minimum cohort size
requirements. A detailed analysis of the likely coverage rate under the
rule and of the number and characteristics of programs that met the
minimum size in the 2022 PPD is included in ``Analysis of Data
Coverage'' below.
We determined, under the provisions in the final regulations for
the D/E rates and EP measures, whether each program would ``Pass D/E,''
``Fail D/E,'' ``Pass EP,'' and ``Fail EP'' based on its 2022 PPD
results, or ``No data'' if it did not meet the cohort size requirement,
was located in Puerto Rico, U.S. Territories and freely associated
states, or was a program for which we do not have data because the
program has post-graduation residency requirements such that it is
evaluated based on a longer earnings periods.\278\ These program-
specific outcomes are then aggregated to determine the fraction of
programs that pass or fail either metric or have insufficient data, as
well as the enrollment in such programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\278\ This is a simplification. Under the regulation, a ``no
data'' year is not considered passing when determining eligibility
for GE programs based on two out of three years. For non-GE
programs, passing with data and without data are treated the same
for the purposes of the warnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pass D/E: Programs with an annual D/E earnings rate less
than or equal to 8 percent OR a discretionary D/E earnings rate less
than or equal to 20 percent.
[[Page 70123]]
Fail D/E: Programs with an annual D/E earnings rate over 8
percent AND a discretionary D/E earnings rate over 20 percent.
Pass EP: Programs with median annual earnings greater than
the median earnings among high school graduates aged 25 to 34 in the
labor force in the State in which the program is located.
Fail EP: Programs with median annual earnings less than or
equal to the median earnings among high school graduates aged 25 to 34
in the labor force in the State in which the program is located.
No data: Programs that had fewer than 30 students in the
two-year completer cohorts such that earnings and debt levels could not
be determined; exempted programs from Puerto Rico, U.S. Territories and
freely associated states; or programs with longer earnings periods due
to post-graduation residency requirements.
Under the final regulations, a GE program will become ineligible
for title IV, HEA program funds if it fails the D/E rates measure for
two out of three consecutive years or fails the EP measure for two out
of three consecutive years. GE programs will be required to provide
warnings in any year in which the program could lose eligibility based
on the next D/E rates or earnings premium measure calculated by the
Department. Students at such programs would be required to acknowledge
having seen the warning and information about debt and earnings before
receiving title IV, HEA funds. Eligible programs (excepting
undergraduate degree programs) not meeting the D/E standards would need
to have students acknowledge viewing this information before students
sign enrollment agreements. These acknowledgment requirements will
apply until the program passes the D/E measure, or for three years from
the last published rate, whichever is earlier.
The Department analyzed the estimated impact of the final
regulations on GE and non-GE programs using the following data elements
defined below:
Enrollment: Number of students receiving title IV, HEA
program funds for enrollment in a program. To estimate enrollment, we
used the count of students receiving title IV, HEA program funds,
averaged over award years 2016 and 2017. Since students may be enrolled
in multiple programs during an award year, aggregate enrollment across
programs will be greater than the unduplicated number of students.
OPEID: Identification number issued by the Department that
identifies each postsecondary educational institution (institution)
that participates in the Federal student financial assistance programs
authorized under title IV of the HEA.
CIP code: Identification code from the Department's
National Center for Education Statistics' (NCES) Classification of
Instructional Programs, which is a taxonomy of instructional program
classifications and descriptions that identifies instructional program
specialties within educational institutions. The rule will define
programs using six-digit CIP codes, but due to data limitations, the
statistics used in this RIA are measured using four-digit codes to
identify programs.\279\ We used the 2010 CIP code instead of the 2020
codes to align with the completer cohorts used in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\279\ In many cases the loss of information from conducting
analysis at a four- rather than six-digit CIP code is minimal.
According to the Technical Documentation: College Scorecard Data by
Field of Study, 70 percent of credentials conferred were in four-
digit CIP categories that had only one six-digit category with
completers at an institution. The 2015 official GE rates can be used
to examine the extent of variation in program debt and earnings
outcomes across 6-digit CIP programs within the same credential
level and institution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control: The control designation for a program's
institution--public, private nonprofit, private for-profit
(proprietary), foreign nonprofit, and foreign for-profit--using PEPS
control data as of March 25, 2022.
Credential level: A program's credential level--
undergraduate certificate, associate degree, bachelor's degree, post-
baccalaureate certificate, master's degree, doctoral degree, first
professional degree, or post-graduate certificate.
Institution predominant degree: The type designation for a
program's institution which is based on the predominant degree the
institution awarded in IPEDS and reported in the College Scorecard:
less than 2 years, 2 years, or 4 years or more.
State: Programs are assigned to a U.S. State, DC, or
territory based on the State associated with the main institution.
The information contained in the 2022 PDD and used in the analysis
necessarily differs from what will be used to evaluate programs under
the final rule in a few ways due to certain information not being
currently collected in the same form as it would under the final rule.
These include:
4-digit CIP code is used to define programs in the 2022
PPD, rather than 6-digit CIP code. Program earnings are not currently
collected at the 6-digit CIP code level, but will be under the final
rule. Furthermore, the 2022 PPD use 2010 CIP codes to align with the
completer cohorts used in the analysis, but programs will be defined
using the 2020 CIP codes under the final rule;
Unlike the final rule, the total loan debt associated with
each student is not capped at an amount equivalent to the program's
tuition, fees, books, and supplies in the 2022 PPD, nor does debt
include institutional and other private debt. Doing so requires
additional institutional reporting of relevant data items not currently
available to the Department. In the 2014 Prior Rule, using information
reported by institutions, the tuition and fees cap was applied to
approximately 15 percent of student records for the 2008-2009 2012 D/E
rates cohort, though this does not indicate the share of programs whose
median debt would be altered by the cap.
D/E rates using earnings levels measured in calendar years
2018 and 2019 would ideally use debt levels measured for completers in
2015 and 2016. Since program level enrollment data are more accurate
for completers starting in 2016, we use completers in 2016 and 2017 to
measure debt. We measure median debt levels and assume completers in
the 2015 and 2016 cohorts would have had total borrowing that was the
same in real terms (i.e., we use the CPI to adjust their borrowing
levels to estimate what the earlier cohort would have borrowed in
nominal terms). This use of one cohort to measure earnings outcomes and
another to measure debt necessarily reduces the estimated coverage in
the 2022 PPD to a lower level than will be experienced in practice, as
we describe in more detail below. Finally, the methodology used to
assign borrowing to particular programs in instances where a borrower
may be enrolled in multiple programs is different in the 2022 PPD than
the methodology that would be used in the final rule (which is the same
as that used in the 2014 Prior Rule);
Medical and dental professional programs, and graduate
mental health programs that lead to licensure, are not evaluated
because earnings six years after completion are not available. The
earnings and debt levels of these programs are set to missing and not
included in the tabulations presented here;
150 percent of the Federal Poverty Guideline is used to
define the ET for institutions in foreign institutions in the 2022 PPD,
rather than a national ET;
The final rule will use a national ET if more than half of
a program's students are out-of-state, but the 2022 PPD uses an ET
determined by the State an institution is located;
Programs at institutions that have merged with other
institutions since
[[Page 70124]]
2017 are excluded, but these programs' enrollment will naturally be
incorporated into the merged institution when the final rule goes into
effect.
Under the final rule, if the two-year completer cohort has
too few students to publish debt and earnings outcomes, but the four-
year completer cohort has a sufficient number of students, then debt
and earnings outcomes would be calculated for the four-year completer
cohort. This was not possible for the 2022 PPD, so some programs with
no data in our analysis would have data to evaluate performance under
the rule.
The 2022 PPD also differ from those published in the Negotiated
Rulemaking data file in several ways. The universe of programs in the
previously published Negotiated Rulemaking data file were based, in
part, on the College Scorecard universe which included programs as they
are reported to IPEDS, but not necessarily to NSLDS. IPEDS is a survey,
so institutions may report programs (degrees granted by credential
level and CIP code) differently in IPEDS than is reflected in NSLDS. To
reflect the impact of the rule more accurately, the universe of the
2022 PPD is based instead on NSLDS records because NSLDS captures
programs as reflected in the data systems used to administer title IV,
HEA aid. Nonetheless, the 2022 PPD accounts for the same loan volume
reflected in the Negotiated Rulemaking data file. In addition, the
Negotiated Rulemaking data file included programs that were based on a
previous version of College Scorecard prior to corrections made to
resolve incorrect institution-reported information in underlying data
sources.
Methodology for D/E Rates Calculations
The D/E rates measure is comprised of two debt-to-earnings ratios,
or rates. The first, the annual earnings rate, is based on annual
earnings, and the second, the discretionary earnings rate, is based on
discretionary earnings. These two components together define a
relationship between the maximum typical amount of debt program
graduates should borrow based on the programs' graduates' typical
earnings. Both conceptually and functionally the two metrics operate
together, and so should be thought of as one ``debt to earnings (D/E)''
metric. The formulas for the two D/E rates are:
Annual Earnings Rate = (Annual Loan Payment) / (Annual Earnings)
Discretionary Earnings Rate = (Annual Loan Payment / (Discretionary
Earnings)
A program's annual loan payment, the numerator in both rates, is
the median annual loan payment of the 2016-2017 completer cohort. This
loan payment is calculated based on the program's cohort median total
loan debt at program completion, including non-borrowers, subject to
assumptions on the amortization period and interest rate. Cohorts'
median total loan debt at program completion were computed as follows.
Each student's total loan debt includes both FFEL and
Direct Loans. Loan debt does not include PLUS Loans made to parents,
Direct Unsubsidized Loans that were converted from TEACH Grants,
private loans, or institutional loans that the student received for
enrollment in the program.
In cases where a student completed multiple programs at
the same institution, all loan debt is attributed to the highest
credentialed program that the student completed, and the student is not
included in the calculation of D/E rates for the lower credentialed
programs that the student completed.
The calculations exclude students whose loans were in
military deferment, or who were enrolled at an institution of higher
education for any amount of time in the earnings calendar year, or
whose loans were discharged because of disability or death.
The median annual loan payment for each program was derived from
the median total loan debt by assuming an amortization period and
annual interest rate based on the credential level of the program. The
amortization periods used were:
10 years for undergraduate certificate, associate degree,
post-baccalaureate certificate programs, and graduate certificate
programs;
15 years for bachelor's and master's degree programs;
20 years for doctoral and first professional degree
programs.
The amortization periods account for the typical outcome that
borrowers who enroll in higher-credentialed programs (e.g., bachelor's
and graduate degree programs) are likely to have more loan debt than
borrowers who enroll in lower-credentialed programs and, as a result,
are more likely to take longer to repay their loans. These amortization
rates mirror those used in the 2014 Prior Rule, which were based on
Department analysis of loan balances and the differential use of
repayment plan periods by credential level at that time.\280\ The
interest rates used were:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\280\ See 79 FR 64939-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.27 percent for undergraduate programs;
5.82 percent for graduate programs.
For both undergraduate and graduate programs, the rate used is the
average interest rate on Federal Direct Unsubsidized loans over the
three years prior to the end of the applicable cohort period, in this
case, the average rate for loans disbursed between the beginning of
July 2013 and the end of June 2016.
The denominators for the D/E rates are two different measures of
student earnings. Annual earnings are the median total earnings in the
calendar year three years after completion, obtained from the U.S.
Treasury. Earnings were measured in calendar years 2018 and 2019 for
completers in award years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, respectively, and
were converted to 2019 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for all
Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Earnings are defined as the sum of wages and
deferred compensation for all W-2 forms plus self-employment earnings
from Schedule SE.\281\ Graduates who were enrolled in any postsecondary
program during calendar year 2018 (2014-2015 completers) or 2019 (2015-
2016 completers) are excluded from the calculation of earnings and the
count of students. Discretionary earnings are equal to annual earnings,
calculated as above, minus 150 percent of the Federal Poverty
Guidelines for a single person, which for 2019 is earnings in excess of
$18,735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\ See Technical Documentation: College Scorecard Data by
Field of Study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professional programs in Medicine (MD) and Dentistry (DDS), and
mental health graduate programs that lead to clinical licensure will
have earnings measured over a longer time horizon to accommodate
lengthy post-graduate internship training, where earnings are likely
much lower three years after graduation than they would be even a few
years further removed from completion.\282\ Since longer horizon
earnings data are not currently available, earnings for these programs
were set to missing and treated as if they lacked sufficient number of
completers to be measured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\282\ For example, the average medical resident earns between
roughly $62,000 and $67,000 in the first three years of residency,
according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)
Survey of Resident/Fellow Stipends and Benefits, and the mean
composition for physicians is $260,000 for primary care and $368,000
for specialists, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation
Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methodology for EP Rate Calculation
The EP measures the extent to which a program's graduates earn more
than the typical high school graduate in the same State. The Department
first calculated the ET, which is the median
[[Page 70125]]
earnings of high school graduates in the labor force in each State
where the program is located. The ET is adjusted for differences in
high school earnings across States and over time so it naturally
accounts for variations across these dimensions to reflect what workers
would be expected to earn in the absence of postsecondary
participation. The ET is computed as the median annual earnings among
respondents aged 25-34 in the ACS who have a high school diploma or
GED, but no postsecondary education, and who are in the labor force
when they are interviewed, indicated by working or looking for and
being available to work. This computation method yields a lower ET that
is lower than the method proposed during negotiated rulemaking, which
would compute median annual earnings among respondents aged 25-34 in
the ACS who have a high school diploma or GED, but no postsecondary
education, and who reported working (i.e., having positive earnings) in
the year prior to being surveyed. Table 4.1 below shows the ET for each
State (along with the District of Columbia) in 2019. The ET ranges from
$31,294 (North Dakota) to $20,859 (Mississippi). The threshold for
institutions outside the United States is $18,735. We provide evidence
in support of the chosen threshold below. Estimates of the impact of
the regulations using these alternative thresholds are presented in the
``Regulatory Alternatives Considered'' section.
Table 4.1--Earnings Thresholds by State, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earnings
threshold,
2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State of Institution:
Alabama.................................................. 22,602
Alaska................................................... 27,489
Arizona.................................................. 25,453
Arkansas................................................. 24,000
California............................................... 26,073
Colorado................................................. 29,000
Connecticut.............................................. 26,634
Delaware................................................. 26,471
District of Columbia..................................... 21,582
Florida.................................................. 24,000
Georgia.................................................. 24,435
Hawaii................................................... 30,000
Idaho.................................................... 26,073
Illinois................................................. 25,030
Indiana.................................................. 26,073
Iowa..................................................... 28,507
Kansas................................................... 25,899
Kentucky................................................. 24,397
Louisiana................................................ 24,290
Maine.................................................... 26,073
Maryland................................................. 26,978
Massachusetts............................................ 29,830
Michigan................................................. 23,438
Minnesota................................................ 29,136
Mississippi.............................................. 20,859
Missouri................................................. 25,000
Montana.................................................. 25,453
Nebraska................................................. 27,000
Nevada................................................... 27,387
New Hampshire............................................ 30,215
New Jersey............................................... 26,222
New Mexico............................................... 24,503
New York................................................. 25,453
North Carolina........................................... 23,300
North Dakota............................................. 31,294
Ohio..................................................... 24,000
Oklahoma................................................. 25,569
Oregon................................................... 25,030
Pennsylvania............................................. 25,569
Rhode Island............................................. 26,634
South Carolina........................................... 23,438
South Dakota............................................. 28,000
Tennessee................................................ 23,438
Texas.................................................... 25,899
Utah..................................................... 28,507
Vermont.................................................. 26,200
Virginia................................................. 25,569
Washington............................................... 29,525
West Virginia............................................ 23,438
Wisconsin................................................ 27,699
Wyoming.................................................. 30,544
Foreign Institutions....................................... 18,735
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EP is computed as the difference between Annual Earnings and
the ET:
Earnings Premium = (Annual Earnings)-(Earnings Threshold)
Where the Annual Earnings is computed as above, and the ET is
assigned for the State in which the program is located. For foreign
institutions, 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Guideline for the
given year is used as the ET because comparable information about high
school graduate earnings is not available.
The Department conducted several analyses to support the decision
of the particular ET chosen. The discussion here focuses on
undergraduate certificate programs, which our analysis below suggests
is the sector where program performance results are most sensitive to
the choice of ET.
First, based on student age information available from students'
Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) data, we estimate that
the typical undergraduate program graduate three years after
completion, when their earnings are measured, would be 30 years old.
The average age of students three years after completion for
undergraduate certificate programs is 31 years, while for associate
programs it is 30, bachelor's 29, master's 33, doctoral 38, and
professional programs 32. There are very few Post-BA and Graduate
Certificate programs (162 in total) and the average ages when their
earnings are measured are 35 and 34, respectively.\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\283\ Age at earnings measurement is not contained in the data,
so we estimate it with age at FAFSA filing immediately before
program enrollment plus typical program length (1 for certificate, 2
for Associate programs, 4 for bachelor's programs) plus 3 years. To
the extent that students take longer to complete their programs, the
average age will be even older than what is reported here. Using
this approach, the mean age when earnings are likely to be measured
in programs with at least 30 students is 30.34 across all
undergraduate programs; the mean for undergraduate certificate
students is 30.42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
[[Page 70126]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC23.004
Figure 4.1 shows the average estimated age for for-profit
certificate holders 3 years after completion, when earnings would be
measured, for the 10 most common undergraduate certificate programs
(and an aggregate ``other'' category). All credentials have an average
age that falls within or above the range of ages used to construct the
earnings threshold. In cases where the average age falls above this
range, our earnings threshold is lower than it would be if we adjusted
the age band use to match the programs' completers ages.
Second, the ET is typically less than the average pre-program
income of program entrants, as measured in their FAFSA. Figure 4.2
shows average pre-program individual income for students at these same
types of certificate programs, including any dependent and independent
students that had previously been working.\284\ Figure 4.2 also plots
the ET and the average post-program median earnings for programs under
consideration. The program-average share of students used to compute
pre-program income is also reported in parentheses.\285\ Pre-program
income falls above or quite close to the ET for most types of
certificate programs. Furthermore, the types of certificate programs
that we show as having very high failure rates--Cosmetology and Somatic
Bodywork (massage), for example--are unusual in having very low post-
program earnings compared to other programs that have similar pre-
program income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\284\ To exclude workers who are minimally attached to the labor
force or in non-covered employment, the Census Postsecondary
Employment Outcomes data requires workers to have annual earnings
greater than or equal to the annual equivalent of full-time work at
the prevailing Federal minimum wage and at least three quarters of
non-zero earnings. (lehd.ces.census.gov/data/pseo_documentation.html). We impose a similar restriction, including
only those students whose pre-program earnings are equivalent to
full-time work for three quarters at the Federal minimum wage. We
only compute average pre-program income if at least 30 students meet
this criteria.
\285\ Across undergraduate certificate programs for which the
pre-program income measure was calculated, the average share of
students meeting the criteria is 41 percent (weighting each program
equally) or 38 percent (weighting programs by title IV, HEA
enrollment). Given incomplete coverage and the potential for non-
random selection into the sample measuring pre-program income, we
view this analysis as only suggestive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We view this as suggestive evidence that the ET chosen provides a
reasonable, but conservative, guide to the minimum earnings that
program graduates should be expected to obtain.\286\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\286\ The earnings of 25 to 34 high school graduates used to
construct the ET (similar in age to program completers 3 years after
graduation) should be expected to exceed pre-program income because
the former likely has more labor force experience than the latter.
Therefore, the comparison favors finding that the ET exceeds pre-
program income. The fact that pre-program income generally exceeds
the ET suggests that the ET is conservative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70127]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC23.005
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C
Analysis of Data Coverage
This section begins with a presentation of the Department's
estimate of the share of enrollment and programs that would meet the n-
size requirement and be evaluated under the rule. We assembled data on
the number of completers in the two-year cohort period (AYs 2016-2017)
and total title IV, HEA enrollment for programs defined at the six-
digit OPEID, credential level, and six-digit CIP code from NSLDS. This
is the level of aggregation that will be used in the final rule. Total
title IV, HEA enrollment at this same level of disaggregation was also
collected. Deceased students and students enrolled during the earnings
measurement rule will be excluded from the earnings sample under the
final rule. We therefore impute the number of completers in the earning
sample by multiplying the total completer count in our data by 82
percent, which is the median ratio of non-enrolled earning count to
total completer count derived from programs defined at a four-digit CIP
code level.
Table 4.2 below reports the share of title IV, HEA enrollment and
programs that would have metrics computed under an n-size of 30 and
using six-digit CIP codes to define programs. We estimate that 75
percent of GE enrollment and 15 percent of GE programs would have
sufficient n-size to have metrics computed with a two-year cohort. An
additional 8 percent of enrollment and 11 percent of programs have an
n-size of between 15 and 29 and would be likely have metrics computed
using a four-year completer cohort. The comparable rates for eligible
non-GE programs are 69 percent of enrollment and 19 percent of programs
with a n-size of 30 and using two-year cohort metrics, with the use of
four-year cohort rates likely increasing these coverage rates of
enrollment and programs by 13 and 15 percent, respectively.
Table 4.2 also reports similar estimates aggregating programs to a
four-digit CIP code level. Coverage does not diminish dramatically (3-5
percentage points) when moving from four-digit CIP codes, as presented
in the 2022 PPD, to six-digit CIP codes to define programs.
We note that the high coverage of title IV, HEA enrollment relative
to title IV, HEA programs reflects the fact that there are many very
small programs with only a few students enrolled each year. For
example, based on our estimates, more than half of all programs
(defined at six-digit CIP code) have fewer than five students
completing per year and about twenty percent have fewer than five
students enrolled each year. The Department believes that the coverage
of students based on enrollment is sufficiently high to generate
substantial net benefits and government budget savings from the policy,
as described in ``Net Budget Impacts'' and ``Accounting Statement''
below. We believe that the extent to which enrollment is covered by the
final rule is the appropriate measure on which to focus coverage
analysis on because the benefits, costs, and transfers associated with
the policy almost all scale with the number of students (enrollment or
completions) rather than the number of programs.
[[Page 70128]]
Table 4.2--Share of Enrollment and Programs Meeting Sample Size Restrictions, by CIP Code Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrollment Programs
---------------------------------------------------
CIP4 CIP6 CIP4 CIP6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GE Programs:
n-size = 15............................................. 0.86 0.83 0.29 0.26
n-size = 30............................................. 0.79 0.75 0.18 0.15
Non-GE Programs:
n-size = 15............................................. 0.85 0.82 0.39 0.34
n-size = 30............................................. 0.74 0.69 0.23 0.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Average school-certified enrollment in AY1617 is used as the measure of enrollment, but the 2022 PPD
analyzed in the RIA uses total (certified and non-certified) enrollment, so coverage rates will differ. Non-
enrolled earnings count for AY1617 completers is not available at a six-digit CIP level (for any n-size) or at
a four-digit CIP level (for n-size = 15). Therefore, non-enrolled earnings counts are imputed based on the
median ratio of non-enrolled earnings count to total completer counts at the four-digit CIP level where
available. This median ratio is multiplied by the actual completer count for AY1617 at the four- and six-digit
CIP level for all programs to determine the estimated n-size.
The rest of this section describes coverage rates for programs as
they appear in the 2022 PPD to give context for the numbers presented
in the RIA. Again, the analyses above are the better guide to the
coverage of metrics we are publishing under the rule. The coverage in
the 2022 PPD is lower than that reported in Table 4.2, due to
differences in data used and because the 2022 PPD does not apply the
four-year cohort period ``look back'' provisions and instead only uses
two-year cohorts.\287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\287\ Unlike the final rule, the 2022 PPD also combines earnings
and debt data from two different (but overlapping) two-year cohorts.
Alternatively, the calculations in Table 4.2 use information for a
single two-year completer cohort for both earnings and debt, as the
rule would do, and therefore provides a more accurate representation
of the expected overall coverage. A second difference between the
coverage estimates in Table 4.2 and that in the 2022 PPD has do with
different data sources that result in slightly different estimates
of enrollment coverage between the two sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables 4.3a and 4.3b report the share of non-GE and GE enrollment
and programs with valid D/E rates and EP rates in the 2022 PPD, by
control and credential level.\288\ For Non-GE programs, metrics could
be calculated for about 62 percent of enrollment who attended about 18
percent of programs. Coverage is typically highest for public
bachelor's degree programs and professional programs at private
nonprofit institutions. Doctoral programs in either sector are the
least likely to have sufficient size to compute performance metrics.
Programs at foreign institutions are very unlikely to have a sufficient
number of completers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\288\ Programs located in U.S. Territories and freely associated
states are included in this table but are considered as having no
available data, which slightly underestimates the enrollment and
program coverage estimates provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, about 66 percent of title IV, HEA enrollment is in GE
programs that have a sufficient number of completers to allow the
Department to construct both valid D/E and EP rates in the 2022 PPD.
This represents about 13 percent of GE programs. Note that a small
number of programs have an EP metric computed but a D/E metric is not
available because there are fewer than 30 completers in the two-year
debt cohort. Coverage is typically higher in the proprietary sector--we
are able to compute D/E or EP metrics for programs accounting for about
87 percent of enrollment in proprietary undergraduate certificate
programs. Comparable rates are about 62 percent and 22 percent of
enrollment in the nonprofit and public undergraduate certificate
sectors, respectively.
Table 4.3a--Percent of Programs and Enrollment in Programs With Valid D/E and EP Information by Control and
Credential Level
[Non-GE programs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data availability category
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has both D/E and EP Has EP only Does not have EP or D/E
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs Enrollees Programs Enrollees Programs Enrollees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
Associate..................... 11.6 55.8 0.3 0.3 88.1 43.9
Bachelor's.................... 39.3 74.3 0.5 0.2 60.2 25.5
Master's...................... 14.1 50.7 0.7 0.9 85.2 48.5
Doctoral...................... 2.8 21.0 0.3 0.7 96.9 78.4
Professional.................. 37.3 55.0 0.7 0.6 62.0 44.4
Private, Nonprofit:
Associate..................... 12.6 61.9 0.4 0.1 87.0 38.0
Bachelor's.................... 13.4 50.6 0.3 0.4 86.3 49.1
Master's...................... 18.3 60.5 0.9 0.9 80.8 38.6
Doctoral...................... 6.9 45.8 0.3 1.9 92.8 52.3
Professional.................. 42.9 74.4 1.9 0.8 55.2 24.8
Foreign Private:
Associate..................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 100.0 100.0
Bachelor's.................... 0.1 1.2 ........... ........... 99.9 98.8
Master's...................... 0.3 4.6 0.1 0.4 99.6 95.0
Doctoral...................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 100.0 100.0
Professional.................. 3.4 20.7 1.1 3.9 95.5 75.4
Total:
[[Page 70129]]
Total......................... 17.7 61.3 0.4 0.3 81.9 38.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.3b--Percent of Programs and Enrollment in Programs With Valid D/E and EP Information by Control and
Credential Level
[GE programs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data availability category
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has both D/E and EP Has EP only Does not have EP or D/E
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs Enrollees Programs Enrollees Programs Enrollees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
UG Certificates............... 4.8 21.4 0.3 0.4 94.9 78.2
Post-BA Certs................. 0.9 7.0 0.1 0.2 99.0 92.7
Grad Certs.................... 2.7 21.7 0.2 1.3 97.1 77.0
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates............... 12.4 61.5 0.5 0.1 87.1 38.4
Post-BA Certs................. 0.7 3.8 1.0 2.5 98.3 93.8
Grad Certs.................... 3.9 25.6 0.4 1.1 95.8 73.4
Proprietary:
UG Certificates............... 50.8 87.0 1.4 0.4 47.8 12.7
Associate..................... 34.9 84.4 2.3 0.7 62.9 15.0
Bachelor's.................... 38.5 91.6 1.3 0.6 60.3 7.8
Post-BA Certs................. 8.7 62.2 ........... ........... 91.3 37.8
Master's...................... 40.6 89.6 1.9 0.3 57.5 10.1
Doctoral...................... 32.5 68.7 0.8 3.3 66.7 28.0
Professional.................. 31.0 65.1 3.4 21.2 65.5 13.7
Grad Certs.................... 16.1 66.8 4.8 1.1 79.0 32.2
Total:
Total......................... 12.7 65.0 0.6 0.6 86.6 34.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanation of Terms
While most analysis will be simple cross-tabulations by two or more
variables, we use linear regression analysis (also referred to as
``ordinary least squares'') to answer some questions about the
relationship between variables holding other factors constant.
Regression analysis is a statistical method that can be used to measure
relationships between variables. For instance, in the demographic
analysis, the demographic variables we analyze are referred to as
``independent'' variables because they represent the potential inputs
or determinants of outcomes or may be proxies for other factors that
influence those outcomes. The annual debt to earnings (D/E) rate and
earnings premium (EP) are referred to as ``dependent'' variables
because they are the variables for which the relationship with the
independent variables is examined. The output of a regression analysis
contains several relevant points of information. The ``coefficient,''
also known as the point estimate, for each independent variable is the
average amount that a dependent variable is estimated to change with a
one-unit change in the associated independent variable, holding all
other independent variables included in the model constant. The
standard error of a coefficient is a measure of the precision of the
estimate. The ratio of the coefficient and standard error, called a
``t-statistic'' is commonly used to determine whether the relationship
between the independent and dependent variables is ``statistically
significant'' at conventional levels.\289\ If an estimated coefficient
is imprecise (i.e., it has a large standard error relative to the
coefficient), it may not be a reliable measure of the underlying
relationship. Higher values of the t-statistic indicate a coefficient
is more precisely estimated. The ``R-squared'' is the fraction of the
variance of the dependent variable that is statistically explained by
the independent variables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\289\ We use significance level, or alpha, of 0.05 when
assessing the statistical significance in our regression analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results of the Financial Value Transparency Measures for Programs Not
Covered by Gainful Employment
In this subsection we examine the results of the analysis of the
transparency provisions of the final regulations for the 123,524 non-GE
programs. The analysis is focused on results for a single set of
financial-value measures--approximating rates that would have been
released in 2022 (with some differences, described above). Though
programs with fewer than 30 completers in the cohort are not subject to
the D/E and EP tests and would not have these metrics published, we
retain these programs in our analysis and list them in the tables as
``No Data'' to provide a more complete view of the
[[Page 70130]]
distribution of enrollment and programs across the D/E and EP metrics.
Tables 4.4 and 4.5 report the results for non-GE programs by
control and credential level. Graduate programs with failing D/E
metrics are required to have students acknowledge having seen the
program outcome information before prospective students can sign
enrollment agreements with an institution. Students at non-GE programs
that do not pass the earnings premium metric are not subject to the
student acknowledgment requirement, however, for informational
purposes, we report rates of passing this metric for non-GE programs as
well. We expect performance on the EP metric contained on the ED-
administered program information website to be of interest to students
even if it is not part of the acknowledgment requirement. This analysis
shows that:
842 public and 640 nonprofit degree programs (representing
1.2 and 1.5 percent of programs and 4.6 and 6.6 percent of enrollment,
respectively) would fail at least one of the D/E or EP metrics.
At the undergraduate level, failure of the EP metric is
most common at associate degree programs, whereas failure of the D/E
metric is relatively more common among public bachelor's degree
programs and at nonprofit associate degree programs.
Failure for graduate programs is almost exclusively due to
the failure of the D/E metric and is most prominent for professional
programs at private, nonprofit institutions.
In total, 125,600 students (1.1 percent) at public
institutions and 231,100 students (5.8 percent) at nonprofit
institutions are in programs with failing D/E metrics.
Table 4.4--Number and Percent of Title IV, HEA Enrollment in Non-GE by Result, Control, and Credential Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of enrollment Number of enrollments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fail Fail
No data Pass Fail D/E both D/E Fail EP No data Pass Fail D/E both D/E Fail EP
only and EP only only and EP only
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
Associate.................................. 44.1 48.1 0.4 0.2 7.3 2,425,300 2,641,900 19,900 9,800 400,000
Bachelor's................................. 25.9 72.3 1.1 0.2 0.5 1,502,200 4,195,900 63,000 10,300 29,400
Master's................................... 49.4 49.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 375,800 375,400 9,000 300 0
Doctoral................................... 79.0 18.4 2.6 0.0 0.0 114,800 26,700 3,800 0 0
Professional............................... 45.1 47.4 7.5 0.0 0.0 57,400 60,400 9,600 0 0
Total...................................... 36.3 59.2 0.9 0.2 3.5 4,475,500 7,300,200 105,300 20,300 429,400
Private, Nonprofit:
Associate.................................. 40.6 36.2 8.0 14.5 0.6 108,500 96,600 21,500 38,600 1,700
Bachelor's................................. 51.4 44.8 1.7 1.0 1.2 1,362,100 1,186,900 44,800 26,800 30,600
Master's................................... 40.2 55.6 3.8 0.3 0.1 320,300 442,300 30,400 2,400 800
Doctoral................................... 54.2 30.3 15.4 0.1 0.0 77,400 43,300 22,000 200 0
Professional............................... 26.7 39.0 34.1 0.0 0.2 34,900 50,900 44,400 0 200
Total...................................... 47.7 45.6 4.1 1.7 0.8 1,903,200 1,820,000 163,000 68,100 33,300
Foreign Private:
Associate.................................. 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0 0 0
Bachelor's................................. 98.8 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 5,400 0 0 100 0
Master's................................... 95.4 2.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 8,600 300 200 0 0
Doctoral................................... 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,800 0 0 0 0
Professional............................... 79.3 0.0 20.7 0.0 0.0 1,200 0 300 0 0
Total...................................... 95.7 1.3 2.6 0.4 0.0 18,100 300 500 100 0
Total:
Associate.................................. 44.0 47.5 0.7 0.8 7.0 2,533,800 2,738,500 41,400 48,400 401,700
Bachelor's................................. 33.9 63.6 1.3 0.4 0.7 2,869,700 5,382,800 107,800 37,200 60,000
Master's................................... 45.0 52.2 2.5 0.2 0.1 704,700 817,900 39,500 2,700 800
Doctoral................................... 67.0 24.1 8.9 0.1 0.0 194,900 70,000 25,800 200 0
Professional............................... 36.1 42.9 20.9 0.0 0.1 93,500 111,300 54,300 0 200
Total...................................... 39.2 55.8 1.6 0.5 2.8 6,396,700 9,120,500 268,800 88,500 462,700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Enrollment counts rounded to the nearest 100.
Table 4.5--Number and Percent of Non-GE Programs by Result, Control, and Credential Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Result in 2019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No D/E or EP data Pass Fail D/E only Fail both D/E and Fail EP Only
------------------------------------------------------------ EP -------------------
--------------------
Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent N
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
Associate....................................... 88.5 24,165 9.9 2,693 0.1 24 0.1 19 1.5 411
Bachelor's...................................... 61.0 14,855 37.7 9,167 0.7 164 0.2 48 0.4 104
Master's........................................ 86.0 12,547 13.6 1,990 0.3 41 0.0 3 0.0 1
Doctoral........................................ 97.2 5,562 2.7 153 0.2 9 0.0 0 0.0 0
Professional.................................... 63.9 363 32.9 187 3.2 18 0.0 0 0.0 0
Total........................................... 79.3 57,492 19.6 14,190 0.4 256 0.1 70 0.7 516
Private, Nonprofit:
Associate....................................... 88.3 2,049 8.9 206 1.2 29 1.3 30 0.3 7
Bachelor's...................................... 87.0 25,891 12.1 3,608 0.4 119 0.2 69 0.2 65
Master's........................................ 82.2 8,513 16.1 1,665 1.6 162 0.2 17 0.0 5
Doctoral........................................ 93.1 2,658 5.0 142 1.8 52 0.1 2 0.0 0
Professional.................................... 58.6 289 24.5 121 16.2 80 0.0 0 0.6 3
Total........................................... 86.1 39,400 12.5 5,742 1.0 442 0.3 118 0.2 80
Foreign Private:
Associate....................................... 100.0 18 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
[[Page 70131]]
Bachelor's...................................... 99.9 1,227 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.1 1 0.0 0
Master's........................................ 99.7 3,067 0.1 4 0.1 3 0.0 0 0.0 1
Doctoral........................................ 100.0 793 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Professional.................................... 97.1 101 0.0 0 2.9 3 0.0 0 0.0 0
Total........................................... 99.8 5,206 0.1 4 0.1 6 0.0 1 0.0 1
Total:
Associate....................................... 88.5 26,232 9.8 2,899 0.2 53 0.2 49 1.4 418
Bachelor's...................................... 75.9 41,973 23.1 12,775 0.5 283 0.2 118 0.3 169
Master's........................................ 86.1 24,127 13.1 3,659 0.7 206 0.1 20 0.0 7
Doctoral........................................ 96.2 9,013 3.1 295 0.7 61 0.0 2 0.0 0
Professional.................................... 64.6 753 26.4 308 8.7 101 0.0 0 0.3 3
Total........................................... 82.7 102,098 16.1 19,936 0.6 704 0.2 189 0.5 597
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables 4.6 and 4.7 report results by credential level and 2-digit
CIP code for non-GE programs. This analysis shows that--
Rates of not passing at least one of the metrics are
particularly high for professional programs in law (CIP 22, about 19
percent of law programs representing 29 percent of enrollment in law
programs), theology (CIP 39, about 7 percent, 25 percent) and health
(CIP 51, about 10 percent, 19 percent). Recall that for graduate
degrees, failure is almost exclusively due to the D/E metric, which
would trigger the acknowledgment requirement.
Table 4.6--Percent of Non-GE Title IV, HEA Enrollment in Programs Failing Either D/E or EP Metric, by CIP2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credential level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Bachelor's Master's Doctoral Professional Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Agriculture & Related 0.8 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
Sciences......................
3: Natural Resources And 0.0 1.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.2
Conservation..................
4: Architecture And Related 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.7
Services......................
5: Area & Group Studies........ 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
9: Communication............... 3.5 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
10: Communications Tech........ 8.1 2.9 0.0 ........... .............. 5.9
11: Computer Sciences.......... 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
12: Personal And Culinary 9.5 0.0 0.0 ........... .............. 8.3
Services......................
13: Education.................. 16.6 2.6 1.6 4.3 0.0 4.2
14: Engineering................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
15: Engineering Tech........... 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 .............. 0.2
16: Foreign Languages.......... 1.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8
19: Family & Consumer Sciences. 11.2 8.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 9.2
22: Legal Professions.......... 7.8 9.8 3.6 29.6 28.5 20.0
23: English Language........... 1.1 5.7 3.9 0.0 0.0 4.8
24: Liberal Arts............... 14.0 2.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 10.8
25: Library Science............ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
26: Biological & Biomedical 4.9 2.2 6.0 1.4 0.0 2.7
Sciences......................
27: Mathematics And Statistics. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
28: Military Science........... .............. 0.0 0.0 ........... .............. 0.0
29: Military Tech.............. 0.0 0.0 0.0 ........... .............. 0.0
30: Multi/Interdisciplinary 1.3 1.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.2
Studies.......................
31: Parks & Rec................ 4.8 1.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.2
32: Basic Skills............... 0.0 0.0 0.0 ........... .............. 0.0
33: Citizenship Activities..... .............. 0.0 0.0 ........... .............. 0.0
34: Health-Related Knowledge 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
And Skills....................
35: Interpersonal And Social .............. 0.0 0.0 ........... .............. 0.0
Skills........................
36: Leisure And Recreational 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .............. 0.0
Activities....................
37: Personal Awareness And Self- .............. ........... 0.0 ........... .............. 0.0
Improvement...................
38: Philosophy And Religious 40.5 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2
Studies.......................
39: Theology And Religious 9.4 21.5 7.7 0.0 25.4 14.8
Vocations.....................
40: Physical Sciences.......... 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
41: Science Technologies/ 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 .............. 3.7
Technicians...................
42: Psychology................. 10.8 6.4 4.7 2.0 0.0 6.6
43: Homeland Security.......... 3.7 2.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 3.2
44: Public Admin & Social 23.4 3.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 6.2
Services......................
45: Social Sciences............ 4.9 0.9 3.2 0.0 0.0 1.6
46: Construction Trades........ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .............. 0.0
47: Mechanic & Repair Tech..... 0.4 0.0 ........... ........... .............. 0.4
48: Precision Production....... 0.0 0.0 0.0 ........... .............. 0.0
49: Transportation And 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .............. 0.0
Materials Moving..............
50: Visual And Performing Arts. 6.4 12.7 21.6 1.9 0.0 11.6
51: Health Professions And 5.8 1.0 5.5 20.1 18.6 5.4
Related Programs..............
52: Business................... 5.3 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.9
53: High School/Secondary 0.0 0.0 0.0 ........... .............. 0.0
Diplomas......................
54: History.................... 0.0 0.8 12.2 0.0 0.0 1.6
60: Residency Programs......... .............. ........... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
[[Page 70132]]
Total.......................... 8.5 2.4 2.7 8.9 21.0 5.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.7--Percent of Non-GE Programs Failing Either D/E or EP Metric, by CIP2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credential level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Bachelor's Master's Doctoral Professional Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Agriculture & Related 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Sciences......................
3: Natural Resources And 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3
Conservation..................
4: Architecture And Related 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.3
Services......................
5: Area & Group Studies........ 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
9: Communication............... 0.8 1.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.9
10: Communications Tech........ 2.2 2.4 0.0 ........... .............. 2.1
11: Computer Sciences.......... 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
12: Personal And Culinary 3.9 0.0 0.0 ........... .............. 3.6
Services......................
13: Education.................. 3.5 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.9
14: Engineering................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
15: Engineering Tech........... 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
16: Foreign Languages.......... 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
19: Family & Consumer Sciences. 3.5 2.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.7
22: Legal Professions.......... 1.0 1.4 0.4 14.3 19.2 4.9
23: English Language........... 0.4 1.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.4
24: Liberal Arts............... 15.2 2.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 8.0
25: Library Science............ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
26: Biological & Biomedical 0.8 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.7
Sciences......................
27: Mathematics And Statistics. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
28: Military Science........... .............. 0.0 0.0 ........... .............. 0.0
29: Military Tech.............. 0.0 0.0 0.0 ........... .............. 0.0
30: Multi/Interdisciplinary 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6
Studies.......................
31: Parks & Rec................ 0.8 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.0
32: Basic Skills............... 0.0 0.0 0.0 ........... .............. 0.0
33: Citizenship Activities..... .............. 0.0 0.0 ........... .............. 0.0
34: Health-Related Knowledge 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
And Skills....................
35: Interpersonal And Social .............. 0.0 0.0 ........... .............. 0.0
Skills........................
36: Leisure And Recreational 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .............. 0.0
Activities....................
37: Personal Awareness And Self- .............. ........... 0.0 ........... .............. 0.0
Improvement...................
38: Philosophy And Religious 2.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Studies.......................
39: Theology And Religious 2.0 2.5 2.6 0.0 6.6 2.4
Vocations.....................
40: Physical Sciences.......... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
41: Science Technologies/ 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 .............. 0.4
Technicians...................
42: Psychology................. 3.1 2.9 0.9 0.6 0.0 2.0
43: Homeland Security.......... 0.8 2.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.2
44: Public Admin & Social 6.3 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.7
Services......................
45: Social Sciences............ 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4
46: Construction Trades........ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .............. 0.0
47: Mechanic & Repair Tech..... 0.2 0.0 ........... ........... .............. 0.2
48: Precision Production....... 0.0 0.0 0.0 ........... .............. 0.0
49: Transportation And 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .............. 0.0
Materials Moving..............
50: Visual And Performing Arts. 1.4 4.4 4.9 0.4 0.0 3.7
51: Health Professions And 1.3 0.6 2.5 4.5 9.7 2.0
Related Programs..............
52: Business................... 1.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5
53: High School/Secondary 0.0 0.0 0.0 ........... .............. 0.0
Diplomas......................
54: History.................... 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3
60: Residency Programs......... 0.0 ........... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total.......................... 1.8 1.0 0.8 0.7 8.9 1.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results of GE Accountability for Programs Subject to the Gainful
Employment Rule
This analysis is based on the 2022 PPD described in the ``Data Used
in this RIA'' above. In this subsection, we examine the combined
results of the analysis of the final regulations for the 32,058 GE
Programs. The analysis is primarily focused on GE metric results for a
single year, though continued eligibility depends on performance in
multiple years. The likelihood of repeated failure is discussed briefly
below and is incorporated into the budget impact and cost-benefit
analyses. Though programs with fewer than 30 completers in the cohort
are not subject to the D/E and EP tests, we retain these programs in
our analysis to provide a more complete view of program passage than if
they were excluded.
Program-Level Results
Tables 4.8 and 4.9 report D/E and EP results by control and
credential level for GE programs. This analysis shows that:
About 64 percent of enrollment is in the 3,937 GE programs
for which rates can be calculated.
40 percent of enrollment is in 2,228 programs (about 7
percent of all GE programs) that meet the size threshold and would pass
both the D/E measure and EP metrics.
About 24 percent of enrollment is in 1,709 programs (about
5 percent of all GE programs) that would fail at least one of the two
metrics.
Failure rates are significantly lower for public
certificate programs (about 4
[[Page 70133]]
percent of enrollment is in failing programs) than for proprietary
(about 51 percent of enrollment is in failing programs) or nonprofit
(about 41 percent of enrollment is in failing programs) certificate
programs, though the latter represents a relatively small share of
overall enrollment. Certificate programs that fail typically fail the
EP metric, rather than the D/E metric.
Across all proprietary certificate and degree programs,
about 33 percent of enrollment is in programs that fail one of the two
metrics, representing about 22 percent of programs. Degree programs
that fail typically fail the D/E metric, with only associate degree
programs having a noticeable number of programs that fail the EP
metric.
Table 4.8--Number and Percent of Title IV, HEA Enrollment in GE Programs by Result, Control, and Credential Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fail Fail
Fail D/ both D/ Fail EP Fail D/ both D/ Fail EP
No data Pass E only E and only No data Pass E only E and only
EP EP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
UG Certificates............................ 78.5 17.2 0.0 0.3 4.0 682,300 149,300 200 3,000 34,700
Post-BA Certs.............................. 93.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11,800 900 0 0 0
Grad Certs................................. 78.3 21.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 32,800 8,900 200 0 0
Total...................................... 78.7 17.2 0.0 0.3 3.8 726,900 159,200 300 3,000 34,700
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates............................ 41.6 17.9 0.0 3.9 36.6 32,400 14,000 0 3,100 28,500
Post-BA Certs.............................. 96.2 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 7,600 300 0 0 0
Grad Certs................................. 75.4 21.9 2.7 0.0 0.0 26,900 7,800 1,000 0 0
Total...................................... 55.1 18.2 0.8 2.5 23.4 67,000 22,100 1,000 3,100 28,500
Proprietary:
UG Certificates............................ 15.2 34.0 0.2 8.5 42.1 83,700 187,000 1,100 46,500 231,700
Associate.................................. 18.3 44.6 19.4 14.2 3.4 59,900 145,700 63,500 46,500 11,200
Bachelor's................................. 9.6 66.0 22.5 1.8 0.0 65,200 446,100 152,200 12,100 200
Post-BA Certs.............................. 37.8 62.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 300 500 0 0 0
Master's................................... 10.7 72.6 15.7 0.9 0.0 25,800 174,300 37,700 2,200 0
Doctoral................................... 31.3 58.1 10.6 0.0 0.0 16,900 31,400 5,700 0 0
Professional............................... 34.9 14.5 50.7 0.0 0.0 4,200 1,800 6,100 0 0
Grad Certs................................. 32.6 28.9 37.9 0.0 0.7 3,500 3,100 4,100 0 100
Total...................................... 13.9 52.9 14.5 5.7 13.0 259,400 989,800 270,400 107,300 243,100
Foreign Private:
UG Certificates............................ 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0 0 0
Post-BA Certs.............................. 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0
Grad Certs................................. 15.8 0.0 0.0 84.2 0.0 200 0 0 1,300 0
Total...................................... 20.4 0.0 0.0 79.6 0.0 300 0 0 1,300 0
Foreign For-Profit:
Master's................................... 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 200 0 0 0 0
Doctoral................................... 80.5 19.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,600 400 0 0 0
Professional............................... 79.7 0.0 20.3 0.0 0.0 9,200 0 2,400 0 0
Total...................................... 80.0 2.8 17.2 0.0 0.0 11,000 400 2,400 0 0
Total:
UG Certificates............................ 53.3 23.4 0.1 3.5 19.7 798,500 350,300 1,300 52,500 294,900
Associate.................................. 18.3 44.6 19.4 14.2 3.4 59,900 145,700 63,500 46,500 11,200
Bachelor's................................. 9.6 66.0 22.5 1.8 0.0 65,200 446,100 152,200 12,100 200
Post-BA Certs.............................. 92.1 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 19,700 1,700 0 0 0
Master's................................... 10.8 72.6 15.7 0.9 0.0 25,900 174,300 37,700 2,200 0
Doctoral................................... 33.0 56.8 10.2 0.0 0.0 18,500 31,800 5,700 0 0
Professional............................... 56.8 7.4 35.8 0.0 0.0 13,400 1,800 8,500 0 0
Grad Certs................................. 70.6 22.1 5.8 1.4 0.1 63,500 19,900 5,200 1,300 100
Total...................................... 36.3 40.0 9.4 3.9 10.5 1,064,600 1,171,400 274,100 114,700 306,400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Enrollment counts rounded to the nearest 100.
Table 4.9--Number of GE Programs by Result, Control, and Credential Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fail Fail
No D/E Fail D/ both D/ Fail EP No D/E Fail D/ both D/ Fail EP
or EP Pass E only E and only or EP Pass E only E and only
data EP data EP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
UG Certificates................................ 18,051 729 1 6 184 95.2 3.8 0.0 0.0 1.0
Post-BA Certs.................................. 865 7 0 0 0 99.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Grad Certs..................................... 1,887 50 2 0 0 97.3 2.6 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total.......................................... 20,803 786 3 6 184 95.5 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.8
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates................................ 1,229 93 0 5 60 88.6 6.7 0.0 0.4 4.3
Post-BA Certs.................................. 625 4 0 0 0 99.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Grad Certs..................................... 1,346 43 8 0 0 96.3 3.1 0.6 0.0 0.0
Total.......................................... 3,200 140 8 5 60 93.8 4.1 0.2 0.1 1.8
Proprietary:
UG Certificates................................ 1,659 528 5 153 873 51.6 16.4 0.2 4.8 27.1
Associate...................................... 1,155 327 98 78 62 67.2 19.0 5.7 4.5 3.6
Bachelor's..................................... 610 251 80 21 1 63.3 26.1 8.3 2.2 0.1
Post-BA Certs.................................. 48 4 0 0 0 92.3 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
[[Page 70134]]
Master's....................................... 289 143 37 9 0 60.5 29.9 7.7 1.9 0.0
Doctoral....................................... 83 29 10 0 0 68.0 23.8 8.2 0.0 0.0
Professional................................... 23 5 4 0 0 71.9 15.6 12.5 0.0 0.0
Grad Certs..................................... 105 14 6 0 3 82.0 10.9 4.7 0.0 2.3
Total.......................................... 3,972 1,301 240 261 939 59.2 19.4 3.6 3.9 14.0
Foreign Private:
UG Certificates................................ 28 0 0 0 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Post-BA Certs.................................. 27 0 0 0 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Grad Certs..................................... 76 0 0 1 0 98.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0
Total.......................................... 131 0 0 1 0 99.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0
Foreign For-Profit:
UG Certificates................................ 1 0 0 0 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Master's....................................... 6 0 0 0 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Doctoral....................................... 3 1 0 0 0 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Professional................................... 5 0 2 0 0 71.4 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0
Total.......................................... 15 1 2 0 0 83.3 5.6 11.1 0.0 0.0
Total:
UG Certificates................................ 20,968 1,350 6 164 1,117 88.8 5.7 0.0 0.7 4.7
Associate...................................... 1,155 327 98 78 62 67.2 19.0 5.7 4.5 3.6
Bachelor's..................................... 610 251 80 21 1 63.3 26.1 8.3 2.2 0.1
Post-BA Certs.................................. 1,565 15 0 0 0 99.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Master's....................................... 295 143 37 9 0 61.0 29.5 7.6 1.9 0.0
Doctoral....................................... 86 30 10 0 0 68.3 23.8 7.9 0.0 0.0
Professional................................... 28 5 6 0 0 71.8 12.8 15.4 0.0 0.0
Grad Certs..................................... 3,414 107 16 1 3 96.4 3.0 0.5 0.0 0.1
Total.......................................... 28,121 2,228 253 273 1,183 87.7 6.9 0.8 0.9 3.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables 4.10 and 4.11 report the results by credential level and 2-
digit CIP code. This analysis shows--
The highest rate of failure is undergraduate certificate
in Personal and Culinary Services (CIP2 12), where about 73 percent of
enrollment, representing 37 percent of undergraduate certificate
programs in that field, have failing metrics. This is primarily due to
failing the EP metric.
In Health Professions and Related Programs (CIP2 51),
where allied health, medical assisting, and medical administration are
the primary specific fields, 28 percent of enrollment is in an
undergraduate certificate program that fails at least one of the two
metrics, representing 8 percent of programs.
Table 4.10--Percent of GE Title IV, HEA Enrollment in Programs Failing Either D/E or EP Metric, by CIP2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credential level
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UG Post-BA Grad
certificates Associate Bachelor's certs Master's Doctoral Professional certs Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Agriculture & Related Sciences................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
3: Natural Resources And Conservation............ 0.0 ......... 13.1 0.0 0.0 ......... ............ 0.0 9.1
4: Architecture And Related Services............. 0.0 ......... 0.0 0.0 0.0 ......... 0.0 0.0 0.0
5: Area & Group Studies.......................... 0.0 ......... ........... 0.0 ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
9: Communication................................. 42.4 0.0 22.9 0.0 21.8 ......... ............ 0.0 30.1
10: Communications Tech.......................... 10.4 54.7 61.9 0.0 88.9 ......... ............ 0.0 38.6
11: Computer Sciences............................ 4.9 9.7 3.6 0.0 4.5 0.0 ............ 0.0 5.0
12: Personal And Culinary Services............... 73.2 59.4 31.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.5 72.4
13: Education.................................... 5.9 74.5 75.5 0.0 14.1 0.8 0.0 3.4 24.9
14: Engineering.................................. 0.0 37.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 ......... ............ 0.0 3.4
15: Engineering Tech............................. 2.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 ......... ............ 0.0 1.6
16: Foreign Languages............................ 0.0 ......... 94.8 0.0 ......... ......... ............ 0.0 4.5
19: Family & Consumer Sciences................... 1.8 90.2 72.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 ............ 0.0 21.7
22: Legal Professions............................ 3.3 55.9 32.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.0 24.2 26.9
23: English Language............................. 57.4 96.6 87.4 0.0 98.2 ......... ............ 0.0 66.0
24: Liberal Arts................................. 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ............ 0.0 3.5
25: Library Science.............................. 0.0 ......... 100.0 0.0 ......... ......... ............ 0.0 23.5
26: Biological & Biomedical Sciences............. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ............ 9.1 1.1
27: Mathematics And Statistics................... 0.0 ......... 0.0 0.0 ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
28: Military Science............................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 ....... ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
29: Military Tech................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 ....... 0.0 ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
30: Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies.............. 0.0 96.2 92.0 0.0 0.0 ......... ............ 8.8 55.3
31: Parks & Rec.................................. 4.3 66.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ............ 0.0 9.3
32: Basic Skills................................. 41.8 ......... ........... ....... 0.0 ......... ............ 0.0 41.4
33: Citizenship Activities....................... 0.0 ......... ........... ....... ......... ......... ............ ........ 0.0
34: Health-Related Knowledge And Skills.......... 0.0 ......... ........... ....... ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
36: Leisure And Recreational Activities.......... 0.0 ......... ........... ....... 0.0 ......... ............ ........ 0.0
37: Personal Awareness And Self-Improvement...... 0.0 ......... ........... 0.0 ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
38: Philosophy And Religious Studies............. 0.0 ......... 0.0 0.0 0.0 ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
39: Theology And Religious Vocations............. 50.6 0.0 94.2 0.0 90.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.1
40: Physical Sciences............................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
[[Page 70135]]
41: Science Technologies/Technicians............. 0.0 0.0 ........... 0.0 ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
42: Psychology................................... 0.0 0.0 50.3 0.0 27.7 38.0 ............ 33.3 36.3
43: Homeland Security............................ 3.1 54.3 21.9 0.0 19.2 66.5 ............ 0.0 21.7
44: Public Admin & Social Services............... 0.0 81.9 57.5 0.0 15.0 9.2 ............ 2.8 36.7
45: Social Sciences.............................. 0.0 0.0 25.4 0.0 64.5 0.0 ............ 0.0 18.0
46: Construction Trades.......................... 5.2 0.0 ........... ....... ......... ......... ............ 0.0 5.1
47: Mechanic & Repair Tech....................... 2.6 9.6 0.0 ....... ......... ......... ............ 0.0 3.2
48: Precision Production......................... 4.1 0.0 ........... ....... ......... ......... ............ ........ 4.0
49: Transportation And Materials Moving.......... 2.3 0.0 ........... 0.0 0.0 ......... ............ 0.0 2.2
50: Visual And Performing Arts................... 9.8 46.8 52.4 0.0 83.5 ......... 0.0 0.0 38.7
51: Health Professions And Related Programs...... 28.4 33.0 25.2 0.0 24.0 3.3 36.7 15.1 27.8
52: Business..................................... 6.7 40.6 2.8 0.0 3.8 2.0 0.0 0.6 9.0
53: High School/Secondary Diplomas............... 0.0 0.0 ........... ....... ......... ......... ............ ........ 0.0
54: History...................................... 0.0 0.0 36.4 0.0 0.0 ......... ............ 0.0 20.3
60: Residency Programs........................... 0.0 ......... ........... 0.0 ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
Total............................................ 23.3 37.1 24.3 0.0 16.6 10.2 35.8 7.3 23.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.11--Percent of GE Programs Failing Either D/E or EP Metric, by CIP2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credential level
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UG Post-BA Grad
certificates Associate Bachelor's certs Master's Doctoral Professional certs Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Agriculture & Related Sciences................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
3: Natural Resources And Conservation............ 0.0 ......... 20.0 0.0 0.0 ......... ............ 0.0 0.7
4: Architecture And Related Services............. 0.0 ......... 0.0 0.0 0.0 ......... 0.0 0.0 0.0
5: Area & Group Studies.......................... 0.0 ......... ........... 0.0 ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
9: Communication................................. 1.9 0.0 12.0 0.0 11.1 ......... ............ 0.0 2.4
10: Communications Tech.......................... 1.3 17.4 29.2 0.0 33.3 ......... ............ 0.0 4.4
11: Computer Sciences............................ 0.8 6.0 1.8 0.0 2.4 0.0 ............ 0.0 1.2
12: Personal And Culinary Services............... 37.2 12.7 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 35.5
13: Education.................................... 1.3 10.0 18.2 0.0 6.3 4.3 0.0 0.4 1.2
14: Engineering.................................. 0.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 ......... ............ 0.0 0.7
15: Engineering Tech............................. 0.2 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 ......... ............ 0.0 0.3
16: Foreign Languages............................ 0.0 ......... 50.0 0.0 ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.4
19: Family & Consumer Sciences................... 0.7 25.0 27.3 0.0 100.0 100.0 ............ 0.0 1.9
22: Legal Professions............................ 0.6 19.7 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 3.8 4.0
23: English Language............................. 8.6 20.0 36.4 0.0 50.0 ......... ............ 0.0 7.9
24: Liberal Arts................................. 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ............ 0.0 0.9
25: Library Science.............................. 0.0 ......... 100.0 0.0 ......... ......... ............ 0.0 1.9
26: Biological & Biomedical Sciences............. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ............ 1.1 0.4
27: Mathematics And Statistics................... 0.0 ......... 0.0 0.0 ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
28: Military Science............................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 ....... ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
29: Military Tech................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 ....... 0.0 ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
30: Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies.............. 0.0 25.0 28.6 0.0 0.0 ......... ............ 0.7 1.4
31: Parks & Rec.................................. 1.6 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ............ 0.0 2.3
32: Basic Skills................................. 5.4 ......... ........... ....... 0.0 ......... ............ 0.0 5.1
33: Citizenship Activities....................... 0.0 ......... ........... ....... ......... ......... ............ ........ 0.0
34: Health-Related Knowledge And Skills.......... 0.0 ......... ........... ....... ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
35: Interpersonal And Social Skills.............. ............ ......... ........... ....... ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
36: Leisure And Recreational Activities.......... 0.0 ......... ........... ....... 0.0 ......... ............ ........ 0.0
37: Personal Awareness And Self-Improvement...... 0.0 ......... ........... 0.0 ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
38: Philosophy And Religious Studies............. 0.0 ......... 0.0 0.0 0.0 ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
39: Theology And Religious Vocations............. 4.9 0.0 20.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8
40: Physical Sciences............................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
41: Science Technologies/Technicians............. 0.0 0.0 ........... 0.0 ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
42: Psychology................................... 0.0 0.0 28.6 0.0 15.8 13.3 ............ 1.4 3.7
43: Homeland Security............................ 0.6 21.6 12.1 0.0 13.0 25.0 ............ 0.0 3.0
44: Public Admin & Social Services............... 0.0 40.0 21.4 0.0 10.5 28.6 ............ 1.1 2.8
45: Social Sciences.............................. 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 20.0 0.0 ............ 0.0 0.8
46: Construction Trades.......................... 1.2 0.0 ........... ....... ......... ......... ............ 0.0 1.2
47: Mechanic & Repair Tech....................... 1.5 6.2 0.0 0.0 ......... ......... ............ 0.0 1.7
48: Precision Production......................... 1.6 0.0 ........... ....... ......... ......... ............ ........ 1.6
49: Transportation And Materials Moving.......... 0.9 0.0 ........... 0.0 0.0 ......... ............ 0.0 0.8
50: Visual And Performing Arts................... 1.2 18.8 23.5 0.0 38.5 ......... 0.0 0.0 5.5
51: Health Professions And Related Programs...... 8.4 16.5 6.3 0.0 10.6 5.1 22.2 1.1 8.2
52: Business..................................... 1.4 14.9 5.2 0.0 4.3 4.3 0.0 0.2 2.4
53: High School/Secondary Diplomas............... 0.0 0.0 ........... ....... ......... ......... ............ ........ 0.0
54: History...................................... 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 ......... ............ 0.0 1.8
60: Residency Programs........................... 0.0 ......... ........... 0.0 ......... ......... ............ 0.0 0.0
Total............................................ 5.5 13.8 10.6 0.0 9.5 7.9 15.4 0.6 5.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70136]]
Program Ineligibility
For GE programs, title IV, HEA ineligibility is triggered by two
years of failing the same metric within a three-year period. Years when
a program does not meet the n-size requirement are not counted towards
those three years. The top panel of Table 4.12 shows the share of GE
enrollment and programs in each result category in a second year as a
function of the result in the first year, along with the rate of
becoming ineligible. Failure rates are quite persistent, with failure
in one year being highly predictive of failure in the next year, and
therefore ineligibility for title IV, HEA funds. Among programs that
fail only the D/E metric in the first year, 69.6 percent of enrollment
is in programs that also fail D/E in year 2 and would be ineligible for
title IV, HEA participation the following year. The comparable rates
for programs that fail EP only or both D/E and EP in the first year are
86.6 and 96.3 percent, respectively. The share of programs (rather than
enrollment in such programs) that become ineligible conditional on
first year results is similar, as shown in the bottom panel of Table
4.12. These rates understate the share of programs that would
ultimately become ineligible when a third year is considered.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC23.007
Institution-Level Analysis of GE Program Accountability Provisions
Many institutions have few programs that are subject to the
accountability provisions of GE, either because they are nonproprietary
institutions with relatively few certificate programs or because their
programs tend to be too small in size to have published median debt or
earnings measures. Characterizing the share of GE programs that have
reported debt and earnings metrics that fail in particular
postsecondary sectors can therefore give a distorted sense for the
effect the rule might have on institutions in that sector. For example,
a college (or group of colleges) might offer a single GE program that
fails the rule and so appear to have 100 percent of its GE programs
fail the rule. But if that program is a very small share of the
institution's overall enrollment (or its title IV, HEA enrollment) then
even if every student in that program were to stop enrolling in the
institution--an unlikely scenario as discussed below--the effect on the
institution(s) would be much less than would be implied by the 100
percent failure rate among its GE programs. To provide better context
for evaluating the potential effect of the GE rule on institutions or
sets of institutions, we describe the share of all title IV, HEA
supported enrollment--including enrollment in both GE and non-GE
programs--that is in a GE program and that fails a GE metric and,
therefore, is at risk of losing title IV, HEA eligibility.\290\ Again,
this should not be viewed as an estimate of potential enrollment (or
revenue) loss to the institution--in many cases the most likely impact
of a program failing the GE metrics or losing eligibility is that
students enroll in higher performing programs in the same institution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\290\ Note that these statistics still do not fully capture the
financial impact of GE on institutions. A complete analysis would
account for the share of institutional revenue accounted for by
title IV, HEA students, and the extent to which students in programs
that fail GE will unenroll from the institutions entirely (versus
transferring to a passing program at the same institution). The
measures here are best viewed as a proxy for the share of Federal
title IV, HEA revenue at an institution that is potentially at risk
due to the GE accountability provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.13 reports the distribution of institutions by share of
enrollment that is in a failing GE program, by control and institution
type. It shows that about 91 percent of public institutions and 95
percent of nonprofit institutions have no enrollment in GE programs
that fail the GE metric. This rate is much lower-about 44 percent -for
proprietary institutions, where all types of credential programs are
covered by GE accountability and failure rates tend to be higher.
[[Page 70137]]
Table 4.13--Distribution of Institutions by Share of Enrollment That Fails GE Accountability, by Control and Institution Type
[All Institutions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share of institutional enrollment in failing GE programs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 0% 0-5% 5-10% 10-20% 20-40% 40-99% 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
Less-Than 2-Year............................................ 560 470 20 10 30 20 10 0
2-Year...................................................... 650 610 40 0 0 0 0 0
4-Year or Above............................................. 380 380 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total....................................................... 1,590 1,450 60 20 30 30 10 0
Private, Nonprofit:
Less-Than 2-Year............................................ 110 90 0 0 0 0 10 10
2-Year...................................................... 60 50 0 0 0 0 0 0
4-Year or Above............................................. 560 550 10 0 0 0 0 0
Total....................................................... 730 690 10 0 0 10 10 10
Proprietary:
Less-Than 2-Year............................................ 1,270 530 10 10 20 30 200 480
2-Year...................................................... 120 70 0 10 0 10 30 0
4-Year or Above............................................. 100 60 0 0 10 10 20 0
Total....................................................... 1,490 660 10 10 30 60 240 490
Total:
Less-Than 2-Year............................................ 1,940 1,080 30 20 50 60 210 490
2-Year...................................................... 820 720 40 10 10 20 30 0
4-Year or Above............................................. 1,050 990 10 10 10 10 20 0
Total....................................................... 3,810 2,800 80 30 60 90 260 500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All counts rounded to the nearest 100. Columns may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Very few public community or technical colleges (CCs) have
considerable enrollment in programs that would fail GE. About 6 percent
of the predominant 2-year public colleges have any of their enrollment
in certificate programs that would fail, and about 5 percent of the
predominantly less than two-year technical colleges have more than 20
percent of enrollment that does.
The share of enrollment in failing GE programs for Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges and
Universities (TCUs), and other minority-serving institutions is even
smaller, as shown in Table 4.14.\291\ At HBCUs, only one college out of
100 has more than five percent of enrollment in failing programs;
across all HBCUs, only five programs at four schools fail. TCUs have no
failing programs. Less than one percent of Hispanic-serving
institutions (HSIs) have more than 10 percent of enrollment in failing
programs.\292\ We conducted a similar analysis excluding institutions
that do not have any GE programs. The patterns are similar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\291\ Under Sec. 668.403(b)(1)(i), debt considered in the
calculation of the D/E rates is capped at the total net cost for
tuition, fees, and books. However, due to data constraints noted in
the RIA, this cap was not applied in the analysis of the impact of
the rule. An analysis by New America suggests that this cap will
lead to a large reduction in the number of graduate programs at
HBCUs, HSIs, TCUs, and other MSIs projected to fail the D/E rates
measure. See Caldwell, Tia & Garza, Roxanne (2023). Previous
Projections Overestimated Gainful Employment Failures: Almost All
HBCUs & MSI Graduate Programs Pass. New America (https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/ge-failures-overestimated/).
\292\ The number of Hispanic Serving Institutions reported here
differs slightly from the current eligibility list, as the 2022 PPD
uses designations from 2021. The number of HBCUs and TCUs is the
same in both sources, however.
Table 4.14--Distribution of Institutions by Share of Enrollment That Fails GE Accountability, by Special Mission
Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share of institutional enrollment in failing GE programs
Total -----------------------------------------------------------------------
0% 0-5% 5-10% 10-20% 20-40% 40-99%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N of Institutions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HBCU........................ 100 96 3 1 0 0 0
TCU......................... 35 35 0 0 0 0 0
HSI......................... 446 425 17 1 0 2 1
All Other Non-FP MSI........ 158 144 3 3 4 4 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 739 700 23 5 4 6 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, these estimates cannot assess the impact of the GE
provisions on total enrollment at these institutions. Especially at
institutions with diverse program offerings, many students in failing
programs can be expected to transfer to other non-failing programs
within the institution (as opposed to exiting the institution).
Moreover, many institutions are likely to admit additional enrollment
into their programs from failing programs at other (especially for-
profit) institutions. We quantify the magnitude of this enrollment
shift and revisit the
[[Page 70138]]
implications for overall institution-level enrollment effects in a
later section.
Regulation Targets Low-Performing GE Programs
The Department conducted an analysis on which specific GE programs
fail the metrics. The analysis concludes that the metrics target
programs where students earn little, borrow more, and default at higher
rates on their student loans than similar programs providing the same
credential.
Table 4.15 reports the average program-level cohort default rate
for GE programs, separately by result, control, and credential level.
Programs are weighted by their average title IV, HEA enrollment in AY
2016 and 2017 to better characterize the outcomes experienced by
students. The overall 3-year program default rate is 12.9 percent but
is higher for certificate programs and for programs offered by
proprietary schools. The average default rate is higher for programs
that fail the EP threshold than for programs that fail the D/E metric,
despite debt being lower for the former. This is because even low
levels of debt are difficult to repay when earnings are very low.
Programs that pass the metrics, either with data or without, have lower
default rates than those that fail.
Table 4.15--Average Program Cohort Default Rate by Result, Overall and by Control, and Credential Level
[Enrollment-weighted]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fail D/E Fail both D/ Fail EP
No data Pass only E and EP only Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
UG Certificates............... 16.6 17.5 11.1 20.4 19.9 16.9
Post-BA Certs................. 2.3 2.4 ........... ........... ........... 2.3
Grad Certs.................... 2.6 2.2 0.0 ........... ........... 2.5
Total......................... 15.8 16.5 6.2 20.4 19.9 16.1
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates............... 10.0 9.9 ........... 15.9 14.5 12.0
Post-BA Certs................. 2.9 1.2 ........... ........... ........... 2.8
Grad Certs.................... 2.6 1.9 0.4 ........... ........... 2.4
Total......................... 6.2 6.9 0.4 15.9 14.5 8.7
Proprietary:
UG Certificates............... 14.0 14.4 16.9 14.9 13.9 14.2
Associate..................... 15.0 12.8 17.9 19.6 17.6 15.3
Bachelor's.................... 13.7 11.5 14.4 14.8 11.9 12.4
Post-BA Certs................. 26.4 13.2 ........... ........... ........... 16.9
Master's...................... 4.9 3.8 5.1 4.5 ........... 4.1
Doctoral...................... 3.8 4.6 5.4 ........... ........... 4.4
Professional.................. 1.0 0.0 0.7 ........... ........... 0.7
Grad Certs.................... 1.4 4.2 5.5 ........... . 3.9
Total......................... 12.0 10.6 13.3 16.7 14.1 12.0
Foreign Private:
UG Certificates............... 0.0 ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.0
Post-BA Certs................. 12.5 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12.5
Grad Certs.................... 5.2 ........... ........... 0.0 ........... 0.2
Total......................... 3.6 ........... ........... 0.0 ........... 0.2
Foreign For-Profit:
Master's...................... 0.0 ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.0
Doctoral...................... 0.5 5.3 ........... ........... ........... 1.4
Professional.................. 1.3 ........... 1.3 ........... ........... 1.3
Total......................... 1.1 5.3 1.3 ........... ........... 1.3
Total:
UG Certificates............... 16.1 15.4 16.1 15.3 14.6 15.5
Associate..................... 15.0 12.8 17.9 19.6 17.6 15.3
Bachelor's.................... 13.7 11.5 14.4 14.8 11.9 12.4
Post-BA Certs................. 2.9 5.4 ........... ........... ........... 3.2
Master's...................... 4.8 3.8 5.1 4.5 ........... 4.1
Doctoral...................... 3.5 4.6 5.4 ........... ........... 4.3
Professional.................. 1.2 0.0 0.8 ........... ........... 1.0
Grad Certs.................... 2.5 2.4 4.4 0.0 . 2.6
Total......................... 13.9 11.3 13.1 16.6 14.7 12.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To better understand the specific types of programs that underpin
the aggregate patterns described above, Table 4.16 lists the 20 most
common types of programs (the combination of field and credential
level) by enrollment count in the 2022 PPD. The programs with the
highest enrollments are undergraduate certificate programs in
cosmetology, allied health, liberal arts, and practical nursing, along
with bachelor's programs in business and nursing. These 20 most common
types of programs represent more than half of all enrollments in GE
programs. Table 4.17 provides the average program annual loan payment
(weighted by the number of students completing a program), the average
program earnings (weighted by the number of students completing a
program), the average annual D/E rate, and the average cohort default
rate (weighted by the number of students completing a program). This
shows quite a bit of variability in debt, loan service, earnings, and
default across different types of programs.
[[Page 70139]]
4.16--GE Programs With the Most Students, by CIP and Credential Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Number of Percent of all Number of students at
programs programs students all programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field of Study (Ordered by All-Sector
Enrollment):
1204--Cosmetology & Personal Grooming--UG 1,267 4.0 191,600 6.5
Certificates...............................
5202--Business Administration--Bachelor's... 72 0.2 149,000 5.1
5108--Allied Health (Medical Assisting)--UG 895 2.9 147,100 5.0
Certificates...............................
2401--Liberal Arts--UG Certificates......... 345 1.1 140,900 4.8
5139--Practical Nursing--UG Certificates.... 1,032 3.3 130,900 4.5
5107--Health & Medical Administrative 910 2.9 83,500 2.8
Services--UG Certificates..................
5138--Registered Nursing, Nursing 56 0.2 75,600 2.6
Administration, Nursing Research & Clinical
Nursing--Bachelor's........................
4706--Vehicle Maintenance & Repair--UG 722 2.3 75,100 2.6
Certificates...............................
4301--Criminal Justice & Corrections-- 47 0.2 55,500 1.9
Bachelor's.................................
5202--Business Administration--Master's..... 46 0.1 55,400 1.9
4805--Precision Metal Working--UG 761 2.4 49,000 1.7
Certificates...............................
5109--Allied Health (Diagnostic & 725 2.3 47,000 1.6
Treatment)--UG Certificates................
5108--Allied Health (Medical Assisting)-- 142 0.5 43,800 1.5
Associate..................................
5107--Health & Medical Administrative 46 0.1 42,100 1.4
Services--Bachelor's.......................
5202--Business Administration--Associate.... 89 0.3 39,600 1.4
5107--Health & Medical Administrative 128 0.4 38,700 1.3
Services--Associate........................
5138--Registered Nursing, Nursing 20 0.1 37,800 1.3
Administration, Nursing Research & Clinical
Nursing--Master's..........................
5138--Registered Nursing, Nursing 92 0.3 36,300 1.2
Administration, Nursing Research & Clinical
Nursing--Associate.........................
5202--Business Administration--UG 573 1.8 34,300 1.2
Certificates...............................
5106--Dental Support--UG Certificates....... 432 1.4 33,100 1.1
All Other Programs.............................. 22,920 73.2 1,424,900 48.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: the number of students has been rounded to the nearest 100.
4.17--Annual Loan Payment, Earnings, D/E Rate, Cohort Default Rate by Program Type
[Enrollment-weighted]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Median 2018-19
Annual loan earnings (in Average annual Cohort
payment 2019 $) of 3yrs DTE rate default
after graduation rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field of Study (Ordered by All-Sector Enrollment):
1204--Cosmetology & Personal Grooming--UG 1,004 17,104 6.51 13.68
Certificates....................................
5202--Business Administration--Bachelor's........ 2,711 48,059 5.78 14.07
5108--Allied Health (Medical Assisting)--UG 947 24,137 4.28 16.58
Certificates....................................
2401--Liberal Arts--UG Certificates.............. 99 29,893 0.26 16.38
5139--Practical Nursing--UG Certificates......... 1,075 39,763 3.07 10.23
5107--Health & Medical Administrative Services-- 1,107 23,556 5.34 14.96
UG Certificates.................................
5138--Registered Nursing, Nursing Administration, 1,948 76,718 2.68 3.81
Nursing Research & Clinical Nursing--Bachelor's.
4706--Vehicle Maintenance & Repair--UG 1,410 37,746 4.03 19.48
Certificates....................................
4301--Criminal Justice & Corrections--Bachelor's. 2,720 38,155 7.69 17.06
5202--Business Administration--Master's.......... 3,725 58,366 6.60 4.09
4805--Precision Metal Working--UG Certificates... 642 34,659 2.11 26.57
5109--Allied Health (Diagnostic & Treatment)--UG 564 42,953 2.15 11.7
Certificates....................................
5108--Allied Health (Medical Assisting)-- 2,275 31,598 7.98 12.16
Associate.......................................
5107--Health & Medical Administrative Services-- 3,292 37,044 9.22 10.89
Bachelor's......................................
5202--Business Administration--Associate......... 2,532 32,427 8.30 21.66
5107--Health & Medical Administrative Services-- 2,721 26,779 10.51 14.02
Associate.......................................
5138--Registered Nursing, Nursing Administration, 3,852 96,946 4.02 2.59
Nursing Research & Clinical Nursing--Master's...
5138--Registered Nursing, Nursing Administration, 2,535 61,494 4.69 6.93
Nursing Research & Clinical Nursing--Associate..
5202--Business Administration--UG Certificates... 705 35,816 1.60 20.07
5106--Dental Support--UG Certificates............ 1,024 24,557 4.42 14.00
All Other Programs................................... 3,105 42,530 7.98 12.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.18 lists the most frequent types of failing GE programs (by
enrollment in failing programs). Failing programs are
disproportionately in a small number of types of programs. About 22
percent of enrollment in failing programs is in UG Certificate
Cosmetology programs alone, reflecting both high enrollment and high
failure rates. Another 20 percent are in UG Certificate programs in
Health/Medical administration and assisting, dental support, and
massage, reflecting large enrollment and moderate failure rates. These
20 categories account for about 72 percent of all enrollments in
programs that fail at least one GE metric. Table 4.19 provides the
average program annual loan payment, the average program earnings, and
the average default rate (all weighted by title IV, HEA enrollment) for
the most frequent types (by field and credential) of GE programs that
fail at least one GE metric (by enrollment count), separately for
failing and passing programs. Within each type of program, failing
programs have much higher loan payments, lower earnings, and higher
default rates than programs that pass the GE metrics. This demonstrates
that higher-performing GE programs exist even within the same
[[Page 70140]]
field and credential level as programs that fail GE.
4.18--Failing GE Programs With the Most Students, by GE Result, CIP, and Credential Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Number of Percent of Number of students at
failing failing students failing
programs programs programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1204--Cosmetology & Personal Grooming--UG Certificates..... 638 35.9 153,700 21.5
5108--Allied Health (Medical Assisting)--UG Certificates... 159 9.0 79,100 11.1
5107--Health & Medical Administrative Services--UG 106 6.0 37,600 5.3
Certificates..............................................
5107--Health & Medical Administrative Services--Associate.. 37 2.1 28,800 4.0
5107--Health & Medical Administrative Services--Bachelor's. 5 0.3 26,400 3.7
3017--Behavioral Sciences--Bachelor's...................... 2 0.1 20,100 2.8
5202--Business Administration--Associate................... 23 1.3 19,000 2.7
5108--Allied Health (Medical Assisting)--Associate......... 38 2.1 17,600 2.5
1312--Teacher Education & Professional Development, 2 0.1 17,500 2.4
Specific Levels & Methods--Bachelor's.....................
5115--Mental & Social Health Services & Allied Professions-- 5 0.3 15,400 2.2
Master's..................................................
5106--Dental Support--UG Certificates...................... 63 3.5 14,300 2.0
5135--Somatic Bodywork--UG Certificates.................... 95 5.3 13,400 1.9
4301--Criminal Justice & Corrections--Bachelor's........... 7 0.4 13,100 1.8
4400--Human Services, General--Bachelor's.................. 2 0.1 12,100 1.7
4301--Criminal Justice & Corrections--Associate............ 16 0.9 11,700 1.6
4201--Psychology--Bachelor's............................... 4 0.2 10,200 1.4
1205--Culinary Arts--UG Certificates....................... 21 1.2 5,800 0.8
2301--English Language & Literature, General--UG 8 0.5 5,600 0.8
Certificates..............................................
5139--Practical Nursing--UG Certificates................... 27 1.5 5,500 0.8
5204--Business Operations--UG Certificates................. 33 1.9 5,400 0.8
All Other Programs......................................... 485 27.3 201,200 28.2
----------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 1,776 100.0 713,200 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Student counts rounded to the nearest 100.
4.19--Annual Loan Payment, Earnings, Default Rate Among Top Types of Failing GE Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual loan payment Earnings indicator Default rate (ever)
indicator for for failing GE indicator for
failing GE metric in metric in 2019 for failing GE metric in
2019 for any reason any reason 2019 for any reason
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Passing Failing Passing Failing Passing Failing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field of Study & Level (Ordered by Failing
Program Enrollment):
1204--Cosmetology & Personal Grooming--UG 566.7 1,063.9 27,199.4 16,913.1 17.2 13.0
Certificates.............................
5108--Allied Health (Medical Assisting)-- 813.1 1,034.3 27,612.1 22,527.1 16.5 16.6
UG Certificates..........................
5107--Health & Medical Administrative 860.2 1,279.7 28,803.9 21,243.7 14.6 15.4
Services--UG Certificates................
5107--Health & Medical Administrative 2,250.0 2,857.4 32,807.9 25,598.2 9.5 15.5
Services--Associate......................
5107--Health & Medical Administrative 2,960.3 3,482.3 43,590.7 34,118.7 10.4 11.2
Services--Bachelor's.....................
3017--Behavioral Sciences--Bachelor's..... ......... 3,499.3 ......... 29,512.7 0.0 16.5
5202--Business Administration--Associate.. 2,304.5 2,762.1 37,887.8 27,280.5 19.6 23.9
5108--Allied Health (Medical Assisting)-- 3,458.0 3,121.2 36,729.0 31,081.2 9.2 11.0
Associate................................
1312--Teacher Education & Professional 2,027.4 2,707.3 35,298.8 26,152.5 10.1 16.0
Development, Specific Levels & Methods--
Bachelor's...............................
5115--Mental & Social Health Services & 5,305.3 7,096.9 49,712.0 42,604.7 4.5 6.1
Allied Professions--Master's.............
5106--Dental Support--UG Certificates..... 986.9 1,055.5 27,084.4 23,011.8 13.1 15.1
5135--Somatic Bodywork--UG Certificates... 672.6 948.6 27,373.5 19,258.2 13.6 13.3
4301--Criminal Justice & Corrections-- 2,465.7 3,527.6 40,112.4 32,371.9 15.4 22.3
Bachelor's...............................
4400--Human Services, General--Bachelor's. 2,493.8 3,903.3 33,323.4 32,788.8 14.3 14.9
4301--Criminal Justice & Corrections-- 1,517.7 2,625.0 35,501.2 28,408.3 18.8 22.1
Associate................................
4201--Psychology--Bachelor's.............. 2,068.4 3,333.3 36,641.7 28,865.8 11.1 17.4
1205--Culinary Arts--UG Certificates...... 2,399.3 0.0 ......... 19,361.7 35.0 6.0
2301--English Language & Literature, ......... 3,661.0 ......... 36,873.0 25.0 9.9
General--UG Certificates.................
5139--Practical Nursing--UG Certificates.. 104.7 0.0 30,557.3 26,423.7 16.6 11.9
5204--Business Operations--UG Certificates 494.1 635.9 28,985.0 18,202.5 13.5 16.0
All Other Programs............................ 2,462.3 4,062.4 52,687.3 29,767.5 11.6 13.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student Demographic Analysis
Methodology for Student Demographic Analysis
The Department conducted analyses of the 2022 PPD to assess the
role of student demographics as a factor in program performance. Our
analysis demonstrates that GE programs that fail the metrics have
particularly bad outcomes that are not explained by student
demographics alone. We examined the demographic composition of program
enrollment, comparing the composition of programs that pass, fail, or
did not have data. We also conducted regression analysis, which permits
us to hold constant several factors at once. This analysis focuses on
GE programs since non-GE programs are not at risk of becoming
ineligible for title IV, HEA aid.\293\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\293\ We conducted the regression analysis discussed below for
non-GE programs as well. Our conclusions about the relative
contribution of demographic factors in explaining program
performance on the D/E and EP metrics is similar for non-GE programs
as for GE programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the race and ethnicity variables, we used the proportion of
individuals in each race and ethnicity category among all completers of
each certificate or
[[Page 70141]]
degree reported in the IPEDS 2016 and 2017 Completions Surveys.\294\
Race and ethnicity is not available for only title IV, HEA recipients,
so we rely on information for all (including non-title IV, HEA student)
completers instead from IPEDS. We construct four race/ethnicity
variables:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\294\ Specifically, the C2016A and C2017A datasets available
from the IPEDS data center. These cover the 2015-16 and 2016-17
academic years (July 1 to June 30).
Percent Black
Percent Hispanic
Percent Asian
Percent non-White.
We aggregated the number of completions in each race/ethnicity
category reported for each program in IPEDS to the corresponding GE
program definition of six-digit OPEID, CIP code, and credential level.
While D/E and EP rates measure only the outcomes of students who
completed a program and received title IV, HEA program funds, IPEDS
completions data include both title IV, HEA graduates and non-title IV,
HEA graduates. Race and ethnicity data is not available separately for
title IV, HEA completers. We believe the IPEDS data provides a
reasonable approximation of the proportion, by race and ethnicity, of
title IV, HEA graduates completing GE programs. We determined percent
of each race and ethnicity category for 25,278 of the 32,058 programs.
Many smaller programs could not be matched primarily because, as stated
above, IPEDS and NSLDS use different program categorization systems,
and the two sources at times are not sufficiently consistent to match
data at the GE program-level. Nonetheless, we do not believe this will
substantially affect our results since programs that do not match are
less likely to meet the n-size criteria and would be likely excluded
from our analysis of program performance.
Percent Pell for this analysis is the percentage of title IV, HEA
completers during award years 2015, 2016, and 2017 who received a Pell
grant at any time in their academic career. Because Pell status is
being used as a proxy for socioeconomic background, we counted students
if they had received a Pell grant at any time in their academic career,
even if they did not receive it for enrollment in the program. For
instance, students that received Pell at their initial undergraduate
institution but not at another institution they attended later would be
considered a Pell grant recipient at both institutions.
Several other background variables were collected from students'
Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form. For all students
receiving title IV, HEA aid in award years 2015, 2016, and 2017, the
Department matched their enrollment records to their latest FAFSA filed
associated with their first award year in the program in which they
were enrolled. First-generation status, described below, is taken from
students earliest received FAFSA. From these, the Department
constructed the following:
Percent of students that are male.
Percent of students that are first-generation, defined as
those who indicated on the FAFSA not having a parent that had attended
college. Children whose parents completed college are more likely to
attend and complete college.
Average family income in 2019 dollars. For dependent
students, this includes parental income and the students' own income.
For independent students, it includes the student's own income and
spousal income.
Average expected family contribution. We consider EFC as
an indicator of socioeconomic status because EFC is calculated based on
household income, other resources, and family size.
Average age at time of FAFSA filing.
Percent of students aged 24 or older at time of FAFSA
filing.
Share of students that are independent. Independent status
is determined by a number of factors, including age, marital status,
having dependents, and veteran status.
Median student income prior to program enrollment among
students whose income is greater than or equal to three-quarters of a
year of earnings at Federal minimum wage. We only compute this variable
for programs where at least 30 students meet this requirement, this
variable should be viewed as a rough indicator of students' financial
position prior to program entry. The average percentage of enrollees
covered by this variable is 57.6 across all programs.
Based on these variables, we determined the composition of over
23,907 of the 32,058 programs in our data, though some demographic
variables have more non-missing observations. Unless otherwise stated,
our demographic analysis treats programs (rather than students) as the
unit of analysis. The analysis, therefore, does not weight programs
(and their student characteristics) by enrollment.
Table 4.20 provides program-level descriptive statistics for these
demographic variables in the GE program dataset. The typical (median)
program has 6 percent completers that are Black, 6 percent Hispanic, 0
percent Asian (program mean is 3 percent), and 38 percent non-White. At
the median program, sixty-one percent are independent, half are over
the age 24, and 31 percent are male. Half are first-generation college
students and 77 percent have ever received a Pell Grant. Average family
income at time of first FAFSA filing is $38,000 and the typical student
who is attached to the labor force earns $29,900 before enrolling in
the program.
4.20--Descriptive Statistics of the Demographic Variables
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs Median Average Std. deviation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share T4 Completers First Gen................... 24,199 50 49 34
Share T4 Completers Ever Pell................... 24,199 77 67 36
Share T4 Completers Out-of-State................ 24,199 0 16 30
Share of T4 Completers Male..................... 24,199 31 42 41
Share of T4 Completers Age 24+.................. 24,199 50 51 37
Share T4 Completers Independent................. 24,199 61 58 36
Share All Completions Non-White................. 25,278 38 43 30
Share All Completions Black..................... 25,278 6 14 20
Share All Completions Hispanic.................. 25,278 6 15 23
Share All Completions Asian..................... 25,278 0 3 9
Age at Time of FAFSA............................ 23,907 26 28 8
FAFSA Family Income............................. 23,907 38,137 47,726 45,433
[[Page 70142]]
Median Student Pre-Inc.......................... 17,599 29,908 38,585 32,806
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student Demographics Descriptive Analysis
Table 4.21 reports average demographic characteristics of GE
programs separately by GE result. Programs that fail at least one GE
metric have a higher share of students that are female, higher share of
students that are Black or Hispanic, lower student and family income,
and higher share of students that have ever received the Pell grant.
Average student age and dependency status is similar for passing and
failing programs.
4.21--Demographic Shares by Result
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fail
All Passing (any) Fails D/E Fails EP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share TIV Completers First Gen........................... 49 48 61 55 62
Share TIV Completers Ever Pell........................... 67 66 80 74 82
Share TIV Completers Out-of-State........................ 16 15 21 40 16
Share of TIV Completers Male............................. 42 44 21 28 19
Share of TIV Completers Age 24+.......................... 51 51 49 57 46
Share TIV Completers Independent......................... 58 58 59 66 57
Share All Completions Non-White.......................... 43 42 56 58 56
Share All Completions Black.............................. 14 13 22 26 21
Share All Completions Hispanic........................... 15 15 22 18 23
Share All Completions Asian.............................. 3 3 4 2 4
Age at Time of FAFSA..................................... 28 28 27 29 27
FAFSA Family Income...................................... 47,700 48,600 35,900 41,100 34,200
Median Student Pre-Inc................................... 38,600 39,600 29,200 34,200 27,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Income values rounded to the nearest 100.
Student Demographics Regression Analysis
One limitation of the descriptive tabulations presented above is
that it is difficult to determine which factors, whether they be
demographics or program characteristics, explain the higher failure
rate of programs serving certain groups of students. To further examine
the relationship between student demographics and program results under
the regulations, we analyzed the degree to which specific demographic
characteristics might be associated with a program's annual D/E rate
and EP, while holding other characteristics constant.
For this analysis, the Department estimated the parameters of
ordinary least squares (OLS) linear regression models with annual debt-
to-earnings or the earnings premium as the dependent (outcome)
variables and indicators of student, program, and institutional
characteristics as independent variables.\295\ The independent
demographic variables included in the regression analysis are: share of
students in different race and ethnicity categories; share of students
ever receiving Pell Grants; share of students that are male; share of
students that are first-generation college students; share of students
that are independent; and average family income from student's FAFSA.
Program and institutional characteristics include credential level and
control (public, private nonprofit, and proprietary). In some
specifications we include institution fixed effects and omit control.
When used with program-level data, institutional fixed effects control
for any factors that differ between institutions but are common among
programs in the same institution, such as institutional leadership,
pricing strategy, and State or local factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\295\ Though not shown below, we have conducted parallel
regression analysis with binary indicators for whether the program
fails the D/E metric and whether it fails the EP metric as the
outcomes. Results are qualitatively similar to those reported here
using continuous outcomes, though the amount of variation in these
binary outcomes that demographics explain is even more muted than
that reported here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.22 reports estimates from the D/E rate regressions
described above, with each column representing a different regression
model that includes different sets of independent variables. Comparing
the R-squared across different columns demonstrates the degree to which
different factors explain variation in the outcome. The first three
columns quantify the extent to which variation in D/E rates are
accounted for by program and institutional characteristics. The
institutional control alone (column 1) explains 22 percent of the
variation in D/E and adding credential level increases the R-squared to
33 percent (column 2). D/E rates are 2.5 to 3.9 percentage points
higher for private nonprofit and for-profit institutions than public
institutions (the omitted baseline category) after controlling for
credential level. This may reflect the much higher tuition prices
charged by private institutions, which can result in higher debt
service. Graduate credential levels also have much higher debt-to-
earnings ratios than undergraduate credentials, reflecting the
typically higher tuition costs associated with graduate programs.
Almost all programs are in institutions with multiple GE programs,
so column 3 includes institution fixed effects in place of indicators
for control.\296\ Credential level and institution together account for
77 percent of the variation in D/E rates across programs. To illustrate
how much more of the variation in outcomes is accounted for by student
characteristics, column 4 adds the demographic characteristics on top
of the model with credential level and institution effects. Doing so
only slightly increases the model's ability to account for variation in
D/E, lifting the R-
[[Page 70143]]
squared to 79 percent. For example, this specification effectively
compares programs with more Pell students to those with fewer Pell
students within the same institution and same credential level, while
also controlling for the other independent variables listed.
Demographic characteristics, therefore, appear to explain little of the
variation in D/E rates across programs beyond what can be predicted by
institutional characteristics and program credential level. Evidently,
institution- and program-level factors, which could include such things
as institutional performance and decisions about institutional pricing
along with other factors, are much more important.\297\ The final two
columns report similar models, but weighting by average title IV, HEA
enrollment, and the results are qualitatively similar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\296\ Only 4 percent of GE programs are the only GE program
within the institution. The median number of programs within an
institution is 18.
\297\ The patterns by race are broadly similar to what was found
in analysis of the 2014 final rule. The coefficient on % Black in
the final column suggests that a 10-percentage point increase in the
percent of students that are black is associated with a 0.15 higher
debt-to-earnings ratio, holding institution, credential level, and
the other demographic factors listed constant. Analysis of the prior
rule found an increase of 0.19, though the set of controls is not
the same.
4.22--Regression Analysis of the Demographic Variables, GE Programs, Outcome: D/E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private, Nonprofit.................... 3.062 (0.305) 2.512 (0.263) ................. ................. ................. .................
Proprietary........................... 4.928 (0.110) 3.868 (0.101) ................. ................. ................. .................
Credential Level:
UG Certificates................... ................. -2.118 (0.207) -2.495 (0.603) -4.083 (0.618) -1.079 (0.654) -5.037 (0.594)
Associate......................... ................. 0.084 (0.251) 0.295 (0.449) -0.651 (0.426) 1.401 (0.651) -0.927 (0.427)
Master's.......................... ................. 2.780 (0.769) 1.552 (0.591) 1.303 (0.479) 0.983 (0.719) 1.683 (0.563)
Doctoral.......................... ................. 4.451 (0.809) 3.758 (1.096) 5.701 (1.051) 3.824 (1.469) 7.892 (1.235)
Professional...................... ................. 12.480 (3.696) 5.841 (1.002) 5.672 (1.387) 6.753 (0.850) 8.839 (1.547)
Grad Certs........................ ................. 1.200 (0.596) 1.431 (1.748) 0.928 (1.679) 4.650 (2.577) 4.738 (2.415)
% Black............................... ................. ................. ................. 0.016 (0.009) ................. 0.032 (0.016)
% Hispanic............................ ................. ................. ................. -0.015 (0.011) ................. -0.035 (0.017)
% Asian............................... ................. ................. ................. -0.054 (0.028) ................. -0.154 (0.043)
% Male................................ ................. ................. ................. -0.014 (0.002) ................. -0.028 (0.004)
% Ever Pell........................... ................. ................. ................. 0.003 (0.012) ................. 0.050 (0.017)
% First Generation.................... ................. ................. ................. 0.001 (0.008) ................. -0.021 (0.015)
% Independent......................... ................. ................. ................. -0.008 (0.005) ................. -0.008 (0.008)
FAFSA Family Income ($1,000).......... ................. ................. ................. -0.056 (0.013) ................. -0.087 (0.014)
Intercept............................. 1.265 (0.064) 3.221 (0.217) 6.371 (0.468) 10.974 (1.618) 6.220 (0.423) 12.057 (2.079)
R-squared............................. 0.22 0.33 0.77 0.79 0.64 0.78
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Specifications 3 to 6 include fixed effects for each six-digit OPEID number. Bachelor's degree and public are the omitted categories for
credential type and control, respectively. Columns 5 and 6 weight programs by average title IV, HEA enrollment in AY16 and AY17.
Table 4.23 reports estimates from identical regression models, but
instead using EP as the outcome. Again, each column represents a
different regression model that includes different sets of independent
variables. Program and institutional characteristics still matter
greatly to earnings outcomes. Institutional effects and credential
level together explain 77 percent of the variation in program-level
earnings outcomes (column 3). Adding demographic variables explains an
additional 7 percentage points of the variation in program-level
earnings (column 4). Note that the estimated regression coefficients
will likely overstate the effect of the baseline characteristics on
outcomes if these characteristics are correlated with differences in
program quality not captured by the crude institution and program
characteristics included in the regression.
4.23--Regression Analysis of the Demographic Variables, GE Programs, Outcome: EP
[$1,000s]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private, Nonprofit.................... 8.923 (2.420) 1.461 (1.711) ................. ................. ................. .................
Proprietary........................... -4.475 (0.611) -10.632 (0.489) ................. ................. ................. .................
Credential Level:
UG Certificates................... ................. -18.507 (0.835) -17.315 (1.658) -7.634 (1.415) -20.963 (2.350) -0.592 (1.922)
Associate......................... ................. -6.708 (1.000) -8.647 (1.333) -3.698 (1.128) -11.169 (2.014) -0.219 (1.271)
Master's.......................... ................. 11.357 (1.661) 11.083 (2.072) 7.159 (1.778) 11.594 (3.496) 8.787 (2.811)
Doctoral.......................... ................. 32.585 (3.078) 33.356 (4.576) 20.948 (4.079) 27.749 (6.390) 9.854 (4.553)
Professional...................... ................. 41.422 (12.277) 58.755 (13.661) 44.702 (11.280) 66.316 (9.890) 43.113 (11.599)
Grad Certs........................ ................. 23.756 (3.225) 13.475 (4.224) 11.475 (3.614) 7.105 (6.533) 7.995 (6.577)
% Black............................... ................. ................. ................. -0.116 (0.047) ................. -0.201 (0.058)
% Hispanic............................ ................. ................. ................. -0.081 (0.038) ................. 0.015 (0.061)
% Asian............................... ................. ................. ................. 0.487 (0.110) ................. 1.376 (0.267)
% Male................................ ................. ................. ................. 0.099 (0.007) ................. 0.096 (0.016)
% Ever Pell........................... ................. ................. ................. -0.158 (0.046) ................. -0.094 (0.064)
% First Generation.................... ................. ................. ................. -0.052 (0.029) ................. -0.006 (0.049)
% Independent......................... ................. ................. ................. 0.146 (0.018) ................. 0.200 (0.032)
FAFSA Family Income ($1,000).......... ................. ................. ................. 0.168 (0.056) ................. 0.439 (0.071)
Intercept............................. 11.267 (0.514) 27.745 (0.931) 20.126 (1.349) 9.874 (7.507) 22.128 (1.676) -20.312 (9.392)
R-squared............................. 0.03 0.42 0.77 0.84 0.71 0.87
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Specifications 3 to 6 include fixed effects for each six-digit OPEID number. Bachelor's degree and public are the omitted categories for
credential type and control, respectively. Columns 5 and 6 weight programs by average title IV, HEA enrollment in AY16 and AY17.
[[Page 70144]]
Conclusions about the extent to which different factors explain
variation in program outcomes can be sensitive to the order in which
factors are entered into regressions. However, a variance decomposition
analysis (that is insensitive to ordering) demonstrates that program
and institutional factors explain the majority of the variance in both
the D/E and EP metrics across programs when student characteristics are
also included.
Figure 4.3 provides another view, demonstrating that many
successful programs exist and enroll similar shares of low-income
students. It shows the distribution of raw Eps for undergraduate
certificate programs (the y-axis is in $1,000s) grouped by the average
FAFSA family income of the program. Programs are placed in 20 equally
sized groups from lowest to highest FAFSA family income.\298\ Each dot
represents an individual program. The EP of the median program in each
income group, indicated by the large black square, is clearly
increasing, reflecting the greater earnings opportunities for students
that come from higher income families. However, there is tremendous
variation around this median. Even among programs with students that
come from the lowest income families, there are clearly programs whose
students go on to have earnings success after program completion. This
graph demonstrates that demographics are not destiny when it comes to
program performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\298\ Since each of the 20 groups includes the same number of
programs, the income range varies across groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10OC23.006
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C
Gender Differences
The analysis above showed that programs failing the EP threshold
have a higher share of female students. In Table 4.24, we show
descriptively that there are many programs that have similar gender
composition but have much higher rates of passage than programs in
cosmetology and massage, where failure rates are comparatively higher.
Other programs, such as practical nursing and dental support, are
similar in terms of their gender and racial balance but have much
higher passage rates.
Table 4.24--Gender and Racial Composition of Undergraduate Certificate Programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share of all completers who are . . .
Share of -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
programs Hispanic Women (any
failing Black women women Asian women Other women White women race)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teacher Education............................................ 0.066 0.226 0.165 0.025 0.094 0.439 0.950
[[Page 70145]]
Human Development............................................ 0.019 0.216 0.284 0.039 0.063 0.366 0.968
Health & Medical Admin....................................... 0.441 0.209 0.171 0.029 0.086 0.442 0.938
Medical Assisting............................................ 0.535 0.171 0.292 0.030 0.067 0.317 0.876
Laboratory Science........................................... 0.211 0.163 0.138 0.030 0.079 0.434 0.843
Practical Nursing............................................ 0.034 0.154 0.134 0.033 0.067 0.498 0.886
Cosmetology.................................................. 0.789 0.150 0.191 0.051 0.059 0.451 0.902
Dental Support............................................... 0.428 0.146 0.300 0.025 0.064 0.384 0.920
Business Operations.......................................... 0.257 0.142 0.166 0.020 0.057 0.395 0.781
Business Administration...................................... 0.001 0.128 0.090 0.018 0.058 0.308 0.601
Culinary Arts................................................ 0.148 0.123 0.148 0.019 0.060 0.249 0.598
Somatic Bodywork............................................. 0.619 0.102 0.127 0.029 0.079 0.418 0.754
Accounting................................................... 0.071 0.096 0.141 0.060 0.067 0.361 0.725
Criminal Justice............................................. 0.039 0.072 0.079 0.004 0.027 0.151 0.333
Liberal Arts................................................. 0.038 0.049 0.205 0.043 0.055 0.262 0.613
Allied Health, Diagnostic.................................... 0.015 0.046 0.089 0.016 0.034 0.309 0.494
Information Technology (IT) Admin & Mgmt..................... 0.046 0.044 0.021 0.009 0.029 0.081 0.183
Ground Transportation........................................ 0.005 0.041 0.007 0.003 0.007 0.034 0.092
Computer & Info Svcs......................................... 0.074 0.030 0.078 0.012 0.017 0.113 0.250
Precision Metal Working...................................... 0.041 0.009 0.007 0.001 0.005 0.036 0.058
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC)............ 0.025 0.008 0.003 0.000 0.001 0.012 0.025
Fire Protection.............................................. 0.000 0.007 0.019 0.001 0.005 0.058 0.091
Power Transmission........................................... 0.021 0.007 0.006 0.000 0.003 0.019 0.035
Vehicle Maintenance.......................................... 0.018 0.006 0.011 0.001 0.006 0.027 0.052
Environment Ctrl Tech........................................ 0.007 0.006 0.007 0.001 0.005 0.018 0.036
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions of Student Demographic Analysis
On several dimensions, programs that have higher enrollment of
underserved students have worse outcomes--lower completion, higher
default, and lower post-college earnings levels--due to a myriad of
challenges these students face, including fewer financial resources and
structural discrimination in the labor market.\299\ And yet, there is
evidence that some institutions aggressively recruited vulnerable
students--at times with deceptive marketing and fraudulent data--into
programs without sufficient institutional support and instructional
investment, placing students at risk for having high debt burdens and
low earnings.\300\ Nonetheless, our analysis demonstrates that GE
programs that fail the metrics have particularly bad outcomes that are
not explained by student demographics alone. Furthermore, alternative
programs with similar student characteristics but where students have
better outcomes exist and serve as good options for students that would
otherwise attend low-performing programs. We quantify the extent of
these alternative options more directly in the next section. The GE
rule aims to protect students from low-value programs and steer them to
programs that would be greater engines of upward economic mobility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\299\ Blau, Francine D. & Kahn, Lawrence M. (2017). The Gender
Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations. Journal of Economic
Literature, 55 (3): 789-865. Hillman, N.W. (2014). College on
Credit: A Multilevel Analysis of Student Loan Default. Review of
Higher Education, 37(2), 169-195. Pager, D., Western, B. &
Bonikowski, B. (2009). Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market: A
Field Experiment. American Sociological Review, 74, 777-799.
\300\ Cottom, T.M. (2017). Lower Ed: The Troubling Rise of For-
Profit Colleges in the New Economy. Government Accountability Office
(2010). For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges
Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing
Practices. U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions (2012). For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to
Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Options Exist for Students To Enroll in High-Value Programs
Measuring Students' Alternative Options
One concern with limiting title IV, HEA eligibility for low-
performing GE programs is that such measures could reduce postsecondary
opportunities for some students. The Department conducted an analysis
to estimate the short-term alternative options that are available to
students that might, in the absence of these regulations, enroll in
failing programs. The scope of alternative options in the longer term
is likely to be broader than the results of this analysis, as other
institutions can expand their program offerings and failing programs
can improve their performance.
Students deterred from attending a specific program because of a
loss of title IV, HEA aid eligibility at that program have several
potential alternatives. For programs that are part of a multi-program
institution, many may choose to remain at the same institution, but
attend a different program in a related subject that did not lose
access to title IV, HEA aid and, therefore, likely offers better
outcomes for students in terms of student debt, earnings, or both. Some
would stay in their local area and attend a nearby institution that
offers a program in the same or related subject. Still others would
attend an institution further away, but perhaps in the same State or
online.\301\ In order to identify geographical regions where the
easiest potential transfer options exist, we used the 3-digit ZIP code
(ZIP3) in which each institution is located. Three-digit zip codes
designate the processing and distribution center of the United States
Postal Service that serves a given geographic area. For each
combination of ZIP3, CIP code, and credential level, we determined the
number of programs available and the number of programs that would pass
both the D/E and EP rates measures. Since programs that do not fail due
to insufficient n-size to compute D/E and EP rates represent real
options for students at failing programs, we include these programs in
our calculations. Importantly, we also include all non-GE programs at
public and private nonprofit institutions.\302\
[[Page 70146]]
Our characterization of programs by the number of alternative options
available is also used in the simulations of enrollment shifts that
underlie the budget impact and cost, benefit, and transfer estimates,
which we describe later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\301\ Two other possibilities, which we include in our
simulation of budget impacts, is that students continue to enroll in
programs without receiving title IV, HEA aid or decline to enroll
altogether.
\302\ Since the 2022 PPD are aggregated to each combination of
the six-digit OPEID, four-digit CIP code, and credential level, we
do not have precise data on geographic location. For example, a
program can have multiple branch locations in different cities and
States. At some of these locations, the program could be offered as
an online program while other locations offer only in-person
programs. Each of these locations would present as a single program
in our data set without detail regarding precise location or format.
We do not possess more detailed geographic information that would
allow us to address this issue, so we recognize that our analysis of
geographic scope and alternatives may be incomplete and cause us to
understate the number of options students have. Nonetheless, the
vast majority of alternative options will be captured in our
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.25 reports the distribution of the number of transfer
options available to the students who would otherwise attend GE
programs that fail at least one of the two metrics. We present
estimates for four different ways of conceptualizing and measuring
these transfer options. We assume students have more flexibility over
the specific field and institution attended than credential level, so
all four measures assume students remain in the same credential level.
While not captured in this analysis, it is possible that some students
would pursue a credential at a higher level in the same field, thereby
further increasing their available options. Half of students in failing
GE programs (in 41 percent of failing programs) have at least one
alternative non-failing program of the same credential level at the
same institution, but in a related field (as indicated by being in the
same 2-digit CIP code). More than a quarter have more than one
additional option. Two-thirds of students (at 60 percent of the failing
programs) have a transfer option passing the GE measures within the
same geographic area (ZIP3), credential level, and narrow field (4-
digit CIP code). More than 90 percent of students have at least one
transfer option within the same geographic area and credential level
when the field is broadened to include programs in the same 2-digit CIP
code. Finally, all students have at least one transfer option in the
same State, credential level, and 2-digit CIP code. While this last
measure includes options that may not be viable for currently enrolled
students--requiring moving across the State or attending virtually--it
does suggest that at least some options are available for all students,
both current and prospective, who would otherwise attend failing GE
programs.
Table 4.25--Share of Programs and Enrollment in Failing GE Programs, by Number of Alternative Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Same
institution, Same Zip3, Same Zip3, Same state,
cred level, cred level cred level, cred level,
CIP2 CIP4 CIP2 CIP2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Programs Transfer options:
1 or more................................... 0.41 0.60 0.88 1.00
5 or more................................... 0.03 0.03 0.50 0.96
B. Enrollment Transfer options:
1 or more................................... 0.50 0.65 0.91 1.00
5 or more................................... 0.03 0.04 0.53 0.95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.26 repeats this analysis for non-GE programs with at least
one failing GE metric. Students considering non-GE programs with D/E or
EP metrics that do not meet Department standards may choose to enroll
elsewhere. More than half of students at failing non-GE programs have a
non-failing program in the same 4-digit CIP code, credential level, and
geographic area that they could choose to enroll in. This share
approaches three-quarters if the field is broadened to include programs
in the same two-digit CIP code. Therefore, while the alternative
options for non-GE programs are not as numerous as for GE programs, the
number of alternatives is still quite high.
Table 4.26--Share of Programs and Enrollment in Failing Non-GE Programs, by Number of Transfer Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Same
institution, Same Zip3, Same Zip3, Same state,
Level cred level, cred level, cred level, cred level,
CIP2 CIP4 CIP2 CIP2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Programs Transfer options:
1 or more................................... 0.54 0.47 0.80 0.99
5 or more................................... 0.12 0.05 0.40 0.95
B. Enrollment Transfer options:
1 or more................................... 0.37 0.49 0.71 0.99
5 or more................................... 0.08 0.05 0.29 0.93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This analysis likely understates the transfer options available to
students for three reasons. First, as stated above, it does not
consider programs of a different credential level. For example,
students who would have pursued a certificate program might opt for an
associate degree program that shows higher earnings. Second, it does
not consider the growth of online/distance education programs now
available in most fields of study, from both traditional schools and
primarily on-line institutions.
Third, we do not consider non-title IV, HEA institutions.
Undergraduate certificate programs in cosmetology represent the largest
group of programs without nearby passing options in the same four-digit
CIP code, in large part because many of these programs do not pass the
GE metrics. Nonetheless, recent data from California and Texas suggest
that many students successfully pass
[[Page 70147]]
licensure exams after completing non-title IV, HEA programs in
cosmetology.\303\ Non-title IV, HEA cosmetology schools operate in
almost all counties in Texas.\304\ In Florida, non-title IV, HEA
cosmetology schools have similar licensure pass rates but much lower
tuition.\305\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\303\ In California, 55 percent of individuals passing either
the practical or written components of the licensure test are from
title IV, HEA schools according to Department analysis using
licensing exam data retrieved from www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/schools/schls_rslts.shtml on December 7, 2022.
\304\ Cellini, S.R. & Onwukwe, B. (Aug. 2022). Cosmetology
Schools Everywhere: Most Cosmetology Schools Exist Outside of the
Federal Student Aid System. Postsecondary Equity & Economics
Research Project working paper.
\305\ Cellini, S.R. & Goldin, C. (2014). Does Federal Student
Aid Raise Tuition? New Evidence on For-Profit Colleges. American
Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(4), 174-206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential Alternative Programs Have Better Outcomes Than Failing
Programs
A key motivation for more accountability via this rule is to steer
students to higher value programs. As mentioned previously, research
has shown that when an institution closed after failing accountability
measures based on Cohort Default Rates, students were diverted to
schools with better outcomes.\306\ The Department conducted an analysis
of the possible earnings impact of students shifting from programs that
fail one of the GE metrics to similar programs that do not fail. For
each failing program, we computed the average program-level median
earnings of non-failing programs included in the failing program's
transfer options, which we refer to as ``Alternative Program
Earnings.'' Earnings were weighted by average title IV, HEA enrollment
in award years 2016 and 2017. Alternative options were determined in
the same way as described above. In computing Alternative Program
Earnings, priority was first given to passing programs in the same
institution, credential level, and two-digit CIP code if such programs
exist and have valid earnings. This assigned Alternative Program
Earnings for 20 percent of failing programs. Next priority was given to
programs in the same ZIP3, credential level, and four-digit CIP code,
which assigned Alternative Program Earnings for 8 percent of programs.
Next was programs in the same ZIP3, credential level, and two-digit CIP
code, which assigned Alternative Program Earnings for 14 percent of
programs. We did not use the earnings of programs outside the ZIP3 to
assign Alternative Program Earnings given the wage differences across
regions. It was not possible to compute the earnings of alternative
options for the remaining 59 percent of programs primarily because the
available options in those instances have insufficient number of
completers to report median earnings (47 percent) or because they did
not have alternative options in the same ZIP3 (12 percent). For these
programs, we set the Alternative Program Earnings equal to the median
earnings of high school graduates in the State (the same value used to
determine the ET). The percent increase in earnings associated with
moving from a failing program to a passing program was computed as the
difference between a program's Alternative Program Earnings and its own
median earnings, divided by its own median earnings. We set this
earnings gain measure to 100 percent in the small number of cases where
the median program earnings are zero or the ratio is greater than 100
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\306\ Cellini, S.R., Darolia, R. & Turner, L.J. (2020). Where Do
Students Go When For-Profit Colleges Lose Federal Aid? American
Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 12(2): 46-83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.27 reports the estimated percent difference in earnings
between alternative program options and failing programs, separately by
two-digit CIP and credential level. Across all subjects, the difference
in earnings at passing undergraduate certificate programs and failing
programs is about 50 percent. This is unsurprising, given that the EP
metric explicitly identifies programs with low earnings, which in
practice are primarily certificate programs. Encouragingly, many
passing programs exist in the same subject, level, and market that
result in much higher earnings than programs that fail. Failing
associate degree programs also have similar non-failing programs with
much higher earnings. Earnings differences are still sizable and
positive, though not quite as large for higher credentials. Passing GE
bachelor's degree programs have 31 percent higher earnings than
bachelor's degree programs that fail the GE metrics.
Table 4.28 reports similar estimates for non-GE programs. The
earnings difference between failing and passing non-GE programs is more
modest than for GE programs, but still significant: 21 percent across
all credential levels, ranging from close to zero for Doctoral programs
to 30 percent for bachelor's degree programs.
We use a similar process to compute the percent change in average
program-level median debt between failing GE or non-GE programs and
alternative programs.\307\ Tables 4.29 and 4.30 report the percent
change in debt between alternative program options and failing
programs, separately by two-digit CIP and credential level. Across all
subjects and credential levels, debt is 22 percent lower at alternative
programs than at failing GE programs. Large differences in debt are
seen at all degree levels (other than professional), with modest
differences for undergraduate certificate programs. At non-GE programs,
there is no aggregate debt difference between failing programs and
their alternatives, though this masks heterogeneity across credential
levels. For graduate degree programs, relative to failing programs,
alternative programs have lower debt levels, with the differences (the
percent difference in debt between alternative and failing programs)
ranging from 24 percent (Professional programs) to 35 percent (Doctoral
programs). Failing associate degree programs have debt that is 12
percent higher than in passing programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\307\ The only exception being that we use the debt for
alternative programs in the same credential level, same two-digit
CIP code, and State to impute alternative program debt if such a
program is not available or calculable in students' ZIP3. This is
because there is no other natural benchmark debt level analogous to
the ET used to compute alternative program earnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While these differences do not necessarily provide a completely
accurate estimate of the actual earnings gain or debt reduction that
students would experience by shifting programs, they suggest
alternative options exist that provide better financial outcomes than
programs that fail the D/E and EP metrics.
[[Page 70148]]
Table 4.27--Percent Earnings Difference Between Transfer Options and Failing GE Programs, by CIP and Credential Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credential level
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cip2 UG Grad Total
certificates Associate Bachelor's Master's Doctoral Professional certs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................... ............ ......... ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ ........
3......................................................... ............ ......... -0.18 ......... ......... ............ ........ -0.18
9......................................................... 0.12 ......... 0.24 0.24 ......... ............ ........ 0.17
10........................................................ 0.42 0.19 -0.01 -0.38 ......... ............ ........ 0.07
11........................................................ 0.48 0.26 0.79 -0.62 ......... ............ ........ 0.45
12........................................................ 0.53 0.12 -0.18 ......... ......... ............ 1.00 0.52
13........................................................ 0.38 0.34 0.13 0.46 0.18 ............ -0.04 0.21
14........................................................ ............ -0.01 -0.36 ......... ......... ............ ........ -0.19
15........................................................ 0.14 -0.10 ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ 0.11
16........................................................ ............ ......... -0.03 ......... ......... ............ ........ -0.03
19........................................................ 0.65 0.29 0.13 -0.28 -0.55 ............ ........ 0.11
22........................................................ 0.33 -0.03 -0.04 ......... ......... 0.22 -0.60 0.00
23........................................................ 0.57 -0.07 0.38 -0.09 ......... ............ ........ 0.44
24........................................................ 0.06 ......... ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ 0.06
25........................................................ ............ ......... -0.03 ......... ......... ............ ........ -0.03
26........................................................ ............ ......... ........... ......... ......... ............ -0.32 -0.32
30........................................................ ............ 0.15 -0.07 ......... ......... ............ -0.34 -0.04
31........................................................ 0.51 -0.00 ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ 0.09
32........................................................ 0.32 ......... ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ 0.32
39........................................................ 0.40 ......... -0.03 -0.20 ......... ............ ........ 0.04
42........................................................ ............ ......... 0.06 0.25 -0.52 ............ -0.34 -0.04
43........................................................ 0.22 0.19 0.24 0.41 -0.56 ............ ........ 0.21
44........................................................ ............ 0.04 0.43 0.62 0.46 ............ -0.50 0.37
45........................................................ ............ ......... 0.23 -0.24 ......... ............ ........ 0.06
46........................................................ 0.40 ......... ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ 0.40
47........................................................ 0.39 0.14 ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ 0.33
48........................................................ 0.25 ......... ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ 0.25
49........................................................ 0.77 ......... ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ 0.77
50........................................................ 0.38 0.22 0.27 0.46 ......... ............ ........ 0.29
51........................................................ 0.51 0.83 0.75 0.87 -0.30 -0.06 0.08 0.60
52........................................................ 0.50 0.31 0.61 0.22 0.34 ............ 0.20 0.38
54........................................................ ............ ......... -0.13 ......... ......... ............ ........ -0.13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 0.50 0.47 0.30 0.54 -0.40 -0.03 -0.11 0.43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.28--Percent Earnings Difference Between Transfer Options and Failing Non-GE Programs, by CIP and
Credential Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credential level
cip2 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Total
Associate Bachelor's Master's Doctoral Professional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................ 0.31 0.12 ........... ........... ............ 0.16
3................................ ........... 0.38 -0.14 ........... ............ 0.31
4................................ ........... ........... -0.31 ........... ............ -0.31
5................................ ........... 0.02 ........... ........... ............ 0.02
9................................ 0.12 0.24 -0.02 ........... ............ 0.20
10............................... 0.14 -0.01 ........... ........... ............ 0.11
11............................... 0.36 1.00 ........... ........... ............ 0.40
12............................... 0.25 ........... ........... ........... ............ 0.25
13............................... 0.22 0.32 0.21 -0.12 ............ 0.23
15............................... 0.83 ........... ........... ........... ............ 0.83
16............................... 0.03 0.43 ........... ........... ............ 0.40
19............................... 0.18 0.40 -0.42 ........... ............ 0.27
22............................... 0.00 -0.08 -0.26 -0.59 -0.07 -0.13
23............................... 0.38 0.23 -0.18 ........... ............ 0.20
24............................... 0.15 0.10 -0.54 ........... ............ 0.14
26............................... 0.13 0.28 0.16 -0.70 ............ 0.22
30............................... 0.12 0.06 -0.17 ........... ............ 0.07
31............................... 0.10 0.22 -0.22 ........... ............ 0.18
38............................... -0.05 -0.10 ........... ........... ............ -0.07
39............................... 0.55 0.49 -0.02 ........... 0.20 0.38
40............................... ........... 0.58 ........... ........... ............ 0.58
41............................... 0.08 ........... ........... ........... ............ 0.08
42............................... 0.31 0.04 -0.24 -0.35 ............ 0.07
43............................... 0.19 -0.04 0.06 ........... ............ 0.09
44............................... 0.21 -0.16 -0.08 ........... ............ 0.10
[[Page 70149]]
45............................... 0.09 0.47 -0.12 ........... ............ 0.23
47............................... 0.38 ........... ........... ........... ............ 0.38
50............................... 0.23 0.40 0.31 -0.29 ............ 0.37
51............................... 0.62 0.78 0.57 0.26 0.11 0.46
52............................... 0.15 0.48 0.72 ........... ............ 0.22
54............................... ........... 0.06 -0.19 ........... ............ -0.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 0.22 0.27 0.26 0.07 0.04 0.21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.29--Percent Debt Difference Between Transfer Options and Failing GE Programs, by CIP and Credential Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credential level
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cip2 UG Grad Total
certificates Associate Bachelor's Master's Doctoral Professional certs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................... 0.00 ......... ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ 0.00
3......................................................... ............ ......... -0.65 ......... ......... ............ ........ -0.65
9......................................................... 0.06 ......... -0.26 -0.01 ......... ............ ........ -0.04
10........................................................ 0.15 0.63 -0.32 ......... ......... ............ ........ -0.15
11........................................................ 0.21 -0.36 -0.23 -0.79 ......... ............ ........ -0.14
12........................................................ -0.23 -0.49 0.13 ......... ......... ............ 0.00 -0.23
13........................................................ -0.28 -0.89 -0.31 -0.36 -0.18 ............ -0.20 -0.39
14........................................................ ............ 0.01 -0.58 ......... ......... ............ ........ -0.30
15........................................................ -0.10 -0.69 ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ -0.17
16........................................................ ............ ......... -0.52 ......... ......... ............ ........ -0.52
19........................................................ -0.05 -0.26 -0.24 -0.30 ......... ............ ........ -0.23
22........................................................ 1.00 -0.60 -0.26 ......... ......... -0.40 ........ -0.47
23........................................................ 0.00 -0.82 -0.33 0.00 ......... ............ ........ -0.18
24........................................................ 0.00 ......... ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ 0.00
25........................................................ ............ ......... ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ ........
26........................................................ ............ ......... ........... ......... ......... ............ -0.25 -0.25
30........................................................ ............ -0.91 -0.54 ......... ......... ............ ........ -0.58
31........................................................ -0.83 -0.75 ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ -0.80
32........................................................ 0.00 ......... ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ 0.00
39........................................................ 0.59 ......... ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ 0.59
42........................................................ ............ ......... -0.49 -0.20 -0.16 ............ -0.77 -0.35
43........................................................ -0.57 -0.70 -0.42 -0.10 ......... ............ ........ -0.53
44........................................................ ............ -0.74 -0.09 -0.32 -0.38 ............ ........ -0.23
45........................................................ ............ ......... -0.11 ......... ......... ............ ........ -0.11
46........................................................ 0.07 ......... ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ 0.07
47........................................................ 0.05 -0.24 ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ 0.00
48........................................................ -0.21 ......... ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ -0.21
49........................................................ 0.33 ......... ........... ......... ......... ............ ........ 0.33
50........................................................ 0.21 -0.59 -0.33 -0.23 ......... ............ ........ -0.31
51........................................................ 0.01 -0.16 -0.39 -0.48 -0.64 0.60 -0.43 -0.10
52........................................................ -0.14 -0.42 -0.33 -0.17 -0.17 ............ -0.27 -0.35
54........................................................ ............ ......... -0.22 ......... ......... ............ ........ -0.22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. -0.10 -0.38 -0.36 -0.36 -0.22 0.48 -0.34 -0.22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.30--Percent Debt Difference Between Transfer Options and Failing Non-GE Programs, by CIP and Credential
Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credential level
2-digit CIP code ------------------------------------------------------------------ Total
Associate Bachelor's Master's Doctoral Professional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................ -0.37 -0.14 ........... ........... ............ -0.19
3................................ ........... 0.02 -0.53 ........... ............ -0.06
4................................ ........... ........... -0.35 ........... ............ -0.35
5................................ ........... -0.12 ........... ........... ............ -0.12
9................................ 0.64 -0.22 -0.37 ........... ............ -0.13
10............................... -0.19 -0.11 ........... ........... ............ -0.18
11............................... -0.29 -0.42 ........... ........... ............ -0.30
12............................... 0.08 ........... ........... ........... ............ 0.08
[[Page 70150]]
13............................... 0.24 -0.13 -0.30 -0.03 ............ 0.05
15............................... 0.22 ........... ........... ........... ............ 0.22
16............................... -0.27 0.19 ........... ........... ............ 0.15
19............................... 0.07 0.21 -0.39 ........... ............ 0.14
22............................... -0.55 -0.28 ........... -0.16 -0.26 -0.28
23............................... 0.19 -0.04 -0.33 ........... ............ -0.04
24............................... 0.19 -0.10 ........... ........... ............ 0.16
26............................... 0.78 0.11 -0.28 ........... ............ 0.16
30............................... -0.15 -0.16 0.00 ........... ............ -0.15
31............................... 0.80 -0.22 ........... ........... ............ 0.12
38............................... ........... -0.26 ........... ........... ............ -0.26
39............................... -0.67 -0.03 -0.29 ........... 0.00 -0.10
40............................... ........... 1.00 ........... ........... ............ 1.00
41............................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ ...........
42............................... 0.33 -0.11 -0.04 -0.17 ............ -0.03
43............................... -0.22 -0.30 -0.19 ........... ............ -0.25
44............................... -0.26 -0.23 -0.16 ........... ............ -0.24
45............................... -0.08 -0.19 -0.53 ........... ............ -0.18
47............................... 0.21 ........... ........... ........... ............ 0.21
50............................... 0.25 -0.02 -0.28 ........... ............ -0.01
51............................... 0.01 -0.03 -0.09 -0.38 -0.22 -0.11
52............................... -0.15 -0.26 -0.09 ........... ............ -0.17
54............................... ........... 0.39 -0.79 ........... ............ 0.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 0.12 -0.07 -0.19 -0.32 -0.23 0.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer Causes Net Enrollment Increase in Some Sectors
The aggregate change in enrollment overall, by sector, and by
institution would likely be less than that implied by the program- and
institution-level results presented in the ``Results of GE
Accountability'' section above because those do not consider that many
students would likely transfer to passing programs or even remain
enrolled at failing programs in response to a program losing title IV,
HEA eligibility. The Department simulated the likely destinations of
students enrolled in failing GE programs. Based on the research
literature and described more fully in ``Student Response Assumptions''
subsection in Section 5 below, we use assumptions about the share of
students that transfer to another program, remain enrolled in the
original program, or drop out entirely if a program loses title IV, HEA
eligibility. These student mobility assumptions differ according to the
number of alternative options that exist and are the same assumptions
used in the Net Budget Impact section.
Using these assumptions, for every failing GE program, we estimate
the title IV, HEA enrollment from that program that would remain,
dropout, or transfer to another program. Our notion of ``transfers''
includes both current students and future students who attend an
alternative program instead of one that fails the GE metrics. The
number of transfers is then reallocated to specific other non-failing
GE and non-GE programs in the same institution (OPEID6), credential
level, and 2-digit CIP code. If multiple such programs exist, transfer
enrollment is allocated based on the share of initial title IV, HEA
enrollment in these programs. If no alternative options exist using
this approach, the transfer enrollment is allocated to non-failing GE
and non-GE programs in the same geographic area (ZIP3), credential
level, and 4-digit CIP code. Again, initial title IV, HEA enrollment
shares are used to allocate transfer enrollment if multiple such
alternative programs exist. These two approaches reallocate
approximately 80 percent of the transfer enrollments we would expect
from failing GE programs. Finally, new title IV, HEA enrollment is
computed for each program that sums existing enrollment (or retained
enrollment, in the case of failing GE programs) and the allocated
transfer enrollment.
Table 4.31 summarizes these simulation results, separately by type
of institution.\308\ Without accounting for transfers or students
remaining in failing GE programs, aggregate title IV, HEA enrollment
drops by 715,200 (3.7 percent), with at least some enrollment declines
in all sectors. This will greatly overstate the actual enrollment
decline associated with the regulation because it assumes that students
leave postsecondary education in response to their program failing a GE
metric. The final column simulates enrollment after accounting for
transfers within institution (to similar programs) and to similar
programs at other geographically proximate institutions, along with
permitting some modest enrollment retention at failing programs. In
this scenario, aggregate enrollment declines by only 231,000 (1.2
percent) due to the rule.\309\ Importantly, some sectors experience an
enrollment increase as students transfer from failing to passing
programs. For instance, public 2-year community colleges are simulated
to experience a 30,000-student enrollment increase once transfers are
accounted for rather than a 30,000-student decrease when they are not.
HBCUs are simulated to gain 1,200 students rather than lose 700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\308\ Programs at foreign institutions are excluded from Table
4.31 as they do not have an institutional type.
\309\ Note that since many failing programs result in earnings
lower than those of the typical high school graduate, students
leaving postsecondary education still may be better off financially
compared to staying in a failing program.
[[Page 70151]]
Table 4.31--Enrollment With and Without Transfers, by Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ within
Number of Initial No transfers institution + within
inst. enrollment or retention CIP2 ZIP3-CIP4
transfers transfers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector of institution: ........... ........... .............. ............ ............
Public, 4-year +...................... 700 8,186,900 8,179,700 8,184,900 8,208,800
Private not-for-profit, 4-year +...... 1,400 4,002,400 3,994,500 3,999,200 4,004,500
Private for-profit, 4-year +.......... 200 1,298,900 951,100 1,147,900 1,155,900
Public, 2-year........................ 900 5,025,200 4,995,600 5,013,300 5,054,900
Private not-for-profit, 2-year........ 100 97,200 74,900 91,200 92,100
Private for-profit, 2-year............ 300 290,900 195,600 250,600 255,900
Public, <2-year....................... 200 42,600 41,300 42,100 46,200
Private not-for-profit, <2-year....... <50 11,600 6,200 8,300 8,500
Private for-profit, <2-year........... 1,000 278,400 85,700 151,100 178,200
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 4,900 19,234,100 18,524,500 18,888,500 19,004,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Enrollment counts have been rounded to the nearest 100.
5. Discussion of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers
Description of Baseline
In absence of the final regulations, many students enroll in low-
financial-value programs where they either end up not being able to
secure a job that leads to higher earnings, take on unmanageable debt,
or both. Many of these students default on their student loans, with
negative consequences for their credit and financial security and at
substantial costs to the taxpayers. Many students with insufficient
earnings to repay their debts would be eligible to have their payments
reduced and eventually have their loans forgiven through income-driven
repayment (IDR). This shields low-income borrowers from the
consequences of unaffordable debts but shifts the financial burden onto
taxpayers.
We have considered the primary costs, benefits, and transfers for
the following groups or entities that will be affected by the final
regulations:
Students
Institutions
State and local governments
The Federal Government
We first discuss the anticipated benefits of the final regulations,
including improved market information. We then assess the expected
costs and transfers for students, institutions, the Federal Government,
and State and local governments. Table 5.1 below summarizes the major
benefits, costs, and transfers and whether they are quantified in our
analysis or not.
Table 5.1--Summary of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers for Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment
Final Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and local
Students Institutions governments Federal government
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantified............... Earnings gain from .................... State tax revenue Federal tax revenue
shift to higher from higher from higher
value programs. earnings. earnings.
Not quantified........... Lower rates of Increased enrollment
default, higher and revenue
rates of family & associated with new
business formation, enrollments from
higher retirement improved
savings, saving of information about
opportunity cost value; improvements
for non-enrollees. in program quality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantified............... Time for Time for Additional spending Implementation of
acknowledgment. acknowledgment. at institutions data collection
that absorb and information
students from website.
failing programs.
Not quantified........... Time, logistics, Investments to
credit loss improve program
associated with quality; decreased
program transfer. enrollment and
revenue associated
with fewer new
enrollments from
improved
information about
value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantified............... .................... Aid money from .................... Aid money from
failing programs to failing programs
govt for non- to govt for non-
enrollments; aid enrollments.
money from failing
to better-value
programs for
transfers.
Not quantified........... Increased loan Aid money from Aid money from Increased loan
payments associated failing programs to failing programs to payments
with less IDR State govt for non- State govt for non- associated with
forgiveness. enrollments. enrollments. less IDR
forgiveness and
fewer defaults.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
We expect the primary benefits of both the accountability and
transparency components of the final regulation to derive from a shift
of students from low-value to high-value programs or, in some cases, a
shift away from low-value postsecondary programs to non-enrollment.
This shift will be
[[Page 70152]]
due to improved and standardized market information about GE and non-GE
programs. This will increase the transparency of student outcomes for
better decision-making by current students, prospective students, and
their families; the public, taxpayers, and the Government; and
institutions. Furthermore, the accountability component should improve
program quality by directly eliminating the ability of low-value GE
programs to participate in the title IV, HEA programs. Finally, both
the transparency and accountability provisions of the rule should lead
to a more competitive postsecondary market that encourages improvement,
thereby, improving the outcomes and/or reducing the cost of existing
programs that continue to enroll students.
Benefits to Students
Under the final regulation, students, prospective students, and
their families will have extensive, comparable, and reliable
information about the outcomes of students who enroll in GE and non-GE
programs such as cost, debt, earnings, completion, and repayment
outcomes. This information should assist them in choosing institutions
and programs where they believe they are most likely to complete their
education and achieve the earnings they desire, while having debt that
is manageable. This information should result in more informed
decisions based on reliable information about a program's outcomes.
Students will potentially benefit from this information via higher
earnings, lower costs and less debt, and better program quality. This
can happen through three channels. First, students benefit by
transferring to passing programs. Second, efforts to improve programs
should lead to better labor market outcomes, such as improved job
prospects and higher earnings, by offering better student services,
working with employers so graduates have needed skills, improving
program quality, and helping students with career planning. This may
happen as institutions improve programs to avoid failing the D/E or EP
measures or simply from programs competing more for students based on
quality, with the rule providing greater transparency about program
quality. As a result of these enrollment shifts, students who graduate
with manageable debts and adequate earnings should be more likely to
pay back their loans, marry, buy a home, and invest in their
futures.\310\ Finally, some students that chose not to enroll in low-
value programs will save opportunity costs by not investing their time
in programs that do not lead to good outcomes. While these other
factors are certainly important to student wellbeing, our analysis
focuses on the improvement in earnings associated with a shift from
low-value programs to higher value programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\310\ Chakrabarti, R., Fos, V., Liberman, A. & Yannelis, C.
(2020). Tuition, Debt, and Human Capital. Federal Reserve Bank of
N.Y. Staff Report No. 912. Gicheva, D. (2016). Student Loans or
Marriage? A Look at the Highly Educated. Economics of Education
Review, 53, 207-2016. Gicheva, D. & Thompson, J. (2015). The Effects
of Student Loans on Long-Term Household Financial Stability. In
Hershbein, B. & Hollenbeck, K. (Ed.). Student Loans and the Dynamics
of Debt (137-174). W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research:
Kalamazoo, MI. Hillman, NW (2014). College on Credit: A Multilevel
Analysis of Student Loan Default. Review of Higher Education 37(2),
169-195.
Mezza, A., Ringo, D., Sherlund, S. & Sommer, K. (2020). Student
Loans and Homeownership. Journal of Labor Economics, 38(1): 215-260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits to Institutions
Institutions offering high-performing programs to students are
likely to see growing enrollment and revenue and to benefit from
additional market information that permits institutions to demonstrate
the value of their programs without excessive spending on marketing and
recruitment. Additionally, institutions that work to improve the
quality of their programs could see increased revenues from improved
retention and completion and therefore, additional tuition revenue.
We believe the information transparency will increase enrollment
and revenues in well-performing programs. Improved information should
increase market demand for programs that produce good outcomes. While
the increases or decreases in revenues for institutions are benefits or
costs from the institutional perspective, they are transfers from a
social perspective. However, any additional demand for education due to
overall program quality improvement would be considered a social
benefit.
The improved information that will be available as a result of the
regulations will also benefit institutions' planning and improvement
efforts. Information about student outcomes will help institutions
determine whether it would be prudent to expand, improve quality,
reduce costs, or eliminate various programs. Institutions may also use
this information to offer new programs in fields where students are
experiencing positive outcomes, including higher earnings and steady
employment. Additionally, institutions will be able to identify and
learn from programs that produce exceptional results for students.
Benefits to State and Local Governments
State and local governments will benefit from additional tax
revenue associated with higher student earnings and students' increased
ability to spend money in the economy. They are also likely to benefit
from reduced costs because, as institutions improve the quality of
their programs, their graduates are likely to have improved job
prospects and higher earnings, meaning that governments are likely to
be able to spend less on unemployment benefits and other social safety
net programs. State and local governments will also experience improved
oversight of their investments in postsecondary education.
Additionally, State, and local postsecondary education funding could be
allocated more efficiently to higher-performing programs. State and
local governments would also experience a better return on investment
on their dollars spent on financial aid programs as postsecondary
program quality improves or if students reallocate to higher-performing
programs.
Benefits to Federal Government
The Federal Government should benefit from additional tax revenue
associated with higher student earnings and students' increased ability
to spend money in the economy. Another primary benefit of the
regulations will be improved oversight and administration of the title
IV, HEA programs, particularly the new data reported by institutions.
Additionally, Federal taxpayer funds should be allocated more
efficiently to higher-performing programs, where students are more
likely to graduate with manageable amounts of debt and gain stable
employment in a well-paying field, increasing the positive benefits of
Federal investment in title IV, HEA programs.
The taxpayers and the Government will also benefit from improved
information about GE programs. As the funders and stewards of the title
IV, HEA programs, these parties have an interest in knowing whether
title IV, HEA program funds are benefiting students. The information
provided will allow for more effective monitoring of the Federal
investment in GE programs.
Costs
Costs to Students
Students may incur some costs as a result of the final regulations.
One cost is that all title IV, HEA students attending eligible non-GE
programs that fail the D/E metric will be required to acknowledge
having seen information about program outcomes before students
[[Page 70153]]
sign enrollment agreements. Students attending GE programs with at
least one failing metric will additionally be required to acknowledge a
warning that the program could lose title IV, HEA eligibility. The
acknowledgment is the main student cost we quantify in our analysis. We
expect that over the long-term, all students will have increased access
to programs that lead to successful outcomes. In the short term,
students in failing programs could incur search and logistical costs
associated with finding and enrolling in an alternative program,
whether that be a GE or non-GE program. Further, at least some students
may be temporarily left without transfer options. We expect that many
of these students will re-enter postsecondary education later, but we
understand that some students may not continue. We do not quantify
these costs associated with searching for and transferring to new
postsecondary programs.
Costs to Institutions
Under the regulations, institutions will incur costs as they make
changes needed to comply, including costs associated with the
reporting, disclosure, and acknowledgment requirements. These costs
could include (1) Training of staff for additional duties, (2)
potential hiring of new employees, (3) purchase of new, or
modifications to existing, software or equipment, and (4) procurement
of external services.
As described in the Preamble, much of the necessary information
required from GE programs would already have been reported to the
Department under the 2014 Prior Rule, and as such we believe the added
burden of this reporting relative to existing requirements will be
reasonable. Furthermore, 88 percent of public and 47 percent of private
nonprofit institutions operated at least one GE program and have
experience with similar data reporting for the subset of their students
enrolled in certificate programs under the 2014 Prior Rule. Moreover,
many institutions report more detailed information on the components of
cost of attendance and other sources of financial aid in the Federal
National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey (NPSAS) administered by the
National Center for Education Statistics. Finally, for the first six
years after the effective date of the rule, the Department provides
flexibility for institutions to avoid reporting data on students who
completed programs in the past, and instead to use data on more recent
completer cohorts to estimate median debt levels. In part, this is
intended to ease the administrative burden of providing this data for
programs that were not covered by the 2014 Prior Rule reporting
requirements, especially for the small number of institutions that may
not previously have had any programs subject to these requirements.
Our initial estimate of the time cost of these reporting
requirements for institutions is 5.0 million hours initially and then
1.4 million hours annually after the first year. The Department
recognizes that institutions may have different approaches and
processes for record-keeping and administering financial aid, so the
burden of the GE and financial transparency reporting could vary by
institution. Many institutions may have systems that can be queried or
existing reports that can be adapted to meet these reporting
requirements. On the other hand, some institutions may still have data
entry processes that are very manual in nature and generating the
information for their programs could involve many more hours and
resources. Institutions may fall in between these poles and be able to
automate the reporting of some variables but need more effort for
others. The total reporting burden will be distributed across
institutions depending on the setup of their systems and processes. We
believe that, while the reporting relates to program or student-level
information, the reporting process is likely to be handled at the
institutional level.
Table 5.2 presents the Department's estimates of the hours
associated with the reporting requirements. The reporting process will
involve staff members or contractors with different skills and levels
of responsibility. We have estimated this using Bureau of Labor
statistics median hourly wage for Education Administrators, Post-
Secondary of $48.05.\311\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\311\ Available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes119033.htm.
Table 5.2--Estimated Hours and Wage Rate for Reporting Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Hours Hours basis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review systems and existing reports for adaptability for 10 Per institution.
this reporting.
Develop reporting query/result template:
Program-level reporting............................... 15 Per institution.
Student-level reporting............................... 30 Per institution.
Run test reports:
Program-level reporting............................... 0.25 Per institution.
Student-level reporting............................... 0.5 Per institution.
Review/validate test report results:
Program-level reporting............................... 10 Per institution.
Student-level reporting............................... 20 Per institution.
Run reports:
Program-level reporting............................... 0.25 Per program
Student-level reporting............................... 0.5 Per program
Review/validate report results:
Program-level reporting............................... 2 Per program
Student-level reporting............................... 5 Per program
Certify and submit reporting.............................. 10 Per institution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ability to set up reports or processes that can be rerun in
future years, along with the fact that the first reporting cycle
includes information from several prior years, means that the expected
burden should decrease significantly after the first reporting cycle.
We estimate that the hours associated with reviewing systems,
[[Page 70154]]
developing or updating queries, and reviewing and validating the test
queries or reports will be reduced by 35 percent after the first year.
After initial reporting is completed, the institution will need to
confirm there are no program changes in CIP code, credential level,
preparation for licensure, accreditation, or other items on an ongoing
basis. We expect that process would be less burdensome than initially
establishing the reporting. Table 5.3 presents estimates of reporting
burden for the initial year and subsequent years under Sec. 668.408.
Table 5.3.1--Estimated Reporting Burden for the Initial Reporting Cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institution Program
Control and level count count Hours Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private 2-year........................................... 121 700 33,286 1,599,380
Proprietary 2-year....................................... 1,194 3,490 222,516 10,691,870
Public 2-year............................................ 1,036 37,612 1,265,169 60,791,370
Private 4-year........................................... 1,290 49,000 1,642,518 78,922,966
Proprietary 4-year....................................... 177 2,970 109,018 5,238,303
Public 4-year............................................ 700 56,088 1,805,753 86,766,432
------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 4,518 149,860 5,078,259 244,010,321
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.3.2--Estimated Reporting Burden for Subsequent Reporting Cycles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institution Program
Control and level count count Hours Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private 2-year........................................... 121 700 13,411 644,399
Proprietary 2-year....................................... 1194 3490 105,852 5,086,165
Public 2-year............................................ 1036 37612 359,869 17,291,705
Private 4-year........................................... 1290 49000 464,890 22,337,965
Proprietary 4-year....................................... 177 2970 34,700 1,667,311
Public 4-year............................................ 700 56088 480,882 23,106,380
------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 4,518 149,860 1,459,603 70,133,924
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These burden estimates are not reduced for the exemption that
allows institutions to not report on programs with less than thirty
completers across the most recent four award years. We expect this
provision would reduce the burden on foreign institutions and others
across a variety of fields and institutional characteristics.
As described in the section titled ``Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995,'' the final estimates of reporting costs will be cleared at a
later date through a separate information collection. Institutions'
share of the annual costs associated with disclosures, acknowledgment
for all programs, and warnings and acknowledgment for GE programs are
estimated to be $12 million, $0.05 million, and $0.76 million,
respectively. Note that most of the burden associated acknowledgments
will fall on students, not institutions. These costs are discussed in
more detail in the section titled ``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.''
Institutions that make efforts to improve the outcomes of failing
programs could face additional costs. For example, institutions that
reduce the tuition and fees of programs would see decreased revenue.
For students who are currently enrolled in a program, the reduced price
would be a transfer to them in the form of a lower cost of attendance.
In turn, some of this price reduction would be a transfer to the
government if the tuition was being paid for with title IV, HEA funds.
An institution could also choose to spend more on curriculum
development to, for example, link a program's content to the needs of
in-demand and well-paying jobs in the workforce, or allocate more funds
toward other functions. These other functions could include hiring
better faculty; providing training to existing faculty; offering
tutoring or other support services to assist struggling students;
providing career counseling to help students find jobs; acquiring more
up-to-date equipment; or investing in other areas where increased
spending could yield improved performance. However, as mentioned in the
benefits section, institutions that improve program quality could see
increased tuition revenue with improved retention and completion.
The costs of program changes in response to the regulations are
difficult to quantify generally, as they would vary significantly by
institution and ultimately depend on institutional behavior. For
example, institutions with all passing programs could elect to commit
only minimal resources toward improving outcomes. On the other hand,
they could instead make substantial investments to expand passing
programs and meet increased demand from prospective students, which
could result in an attendant increase in enrollment costs. Institutions
with failing programs could decide to devote significant resources
toward improving performance, depending on their capacity, or could
instead elect to discontinue one or more of the programs. However, as
mentioned previously, some of these costs might be offset by increased
revenue from improved program quality. Given these ambiguities, we do
not quantify costs (or benefits) associated with program quality
improvements.
Finally, some poorly performing programs will experience a
reduction in enrollment that is not fully offset by gains to other
institutions (which will experience increased enrollment) or the
Federal Government (which will experience lower spending on Title IV,
HEA aid). These losses should be considered as costs for institutions.
Costs to States and Local Governments
State and local governments may experience increased costs as
enrollment in well-performing programs at public institutions increases
as a result of some students transferring from failing programs,
including those offered by for-profit institutions.
[[Page 70155]]
The Department recognizes that a shift in students to public
institutions could result in higher State and local government costs,
but the extent of this is dependent on student transfer patterns, State
and local government choices, and the existing capacity of public
programs. If States choose to expand the enrollment capacity of passing
programs at public institutions, it is not necessarily the case that
they would face marginal costs that are similar to their average cost
or that they would only choose to expand through traditional brick-and-
mortar institutions. The Department continues to find that many States
across the country are experimenting with innovative models that use
different methods of instruction and content delivery, including online
offerings, that allow students to complete courses faster and at lower
cost. Furthermore, enrollment shifts would likely be towards community
colleges, where declining enrollment has created excess capacity. An
under-subscribed college may see greater efficiency gains from
increasing enrollment and avoid other costly situations such as unused
classroom space or unsustainably low enrollment. Forecasting the extent
to which future growth would occur in traditional settings versus
online education or some other model is outside the scope of this
analysis. Nonetheless, we do include the additional instructional cost
associated with a shift from failing to passing programs in our
analysis, some of which will fall on State and local governments.
Costs to Federal Government
The main costs to the Federal Government involve setting up the
infrastructure to handle and process additional information reported by
institutions, compute rates and other information annually, and
maintain a program information website and acknowledgment process. Most
of these activities will be integrated into the Department's existing
processes. We estimate that the total implementation cost will be $30
million.
Transfers
Enrollment shifts between programs, and potentially to non-
enrollment, will transfer resources between students, institutions,
State and local governments, and the Federal Government. We model three
main transfers. First, if some students drop out of postsecondary
education or remain in programs that lose eligibility for title IV, HEA
Federal student aid, there would be a transfer of Federal student aid
from those students to the Federal Government. Second, if students
change institutions based on program performance, or title IV, HEA
eligibility, revenues and expenses associated with students would
transfer between postsecondary institutions. Finally, additional
earnings associated with movement from low- to high-value programs
would result in greater loan repayment by borrowers. This is through
both lower default rates and a lower likelihood of loan forgiveness
through existing IDR plans. This represents a transfer from students to
the Federal Government. We do not quantify the transfers between
students and State governments associated with changes in State-
financed student aid, as such programs differ greatly across States.
Transfers between students and States could be net positive for States
if fewer students apply for, or need, State aid programs or they could
be negative if enrollment shifts to State programs results in greater
use of State aid.
6. Methodology for Budget Impact and Estimates of Costs, Benefits, and
Transfers
In this section we describe the methodology used to estimate the
budget impact as well as the main costs, benefits, and transfers. Our
modeling and impact only include the Financial Value Transparency and
GE parts of the final rule.
The main behaviors that drive the direction and magnitudes of the
budget impacts of the rule and the quantified costs, benefits, and
transfers are the performance of programs and the enrollment and
borrowing decisions of students. The Department developed a model based
on assumptions regarding enrollment, program performance, student
response to program performance, and average amount of title IV, HEA
funds per student to estimate the budget impact of these regulations.
Additional assumptions about the earnings outcomes and instructional
spending associated with program enrollment and tax revenue from
additional earnings were used to quantify costs, benefits, and
transfers. The model (1) takes into account a program's past results
under the D/E and EP rates measure to predict future results, and (2)
tracks a GE program's cumulative results across multiple cycles of
results to determine title IV, HEA eligibility.
Assumptions
We made assumptions in four areas in order to estimate the budget
impact of the rule: (1) Program performance under the rule; (2) Student
behavior in response to program performance; (3) Borrowing of students
under the rule; and (4) Enrollment growth of students in GE and non-GE
programs. Table 6.1 below provides an overview of the main categories
of assumptions and the sources. Assumptions that are included in our
sensitivity analysis are also highlighted. Wherever possible, our
assumptions are based on past performance and student enrollment
patterns in data maintained by the Department or documented by scholars
in prior research. Additional assumptions needed to quantify costs,
benefits, and transfers are described later when we describe the
methodology for those calculations.
Table 6.1--Main Assumptions and Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Included in
Category Detail Source sensitivity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumptions for Budget Impact and Calculation of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Performance at Baseline.... Share in each performance ED data............... No.
category at baseline (GE
and non-GE programs).
Enrollment Growth.................. Annual enrollment growth Sector-level No.
rate by sector/level and projections based on
year. Department data.
Program transition between AY2025-26, AY2026-27 Based on Department Yes.
performance categories. onward, separately by loan data.
risk group and for GE and + program improvement
non-GE programs. assumptions.
Student response................... Share of students who Assumptions from 2014 Yes.
remain in programs, RIA and prior work.
transfer to passing
programs, or withdraw or
decline to enroll by
program performance
category and transfer
group; separately for GE
and non-GE programs.
[[Page 70156]]
Student borrowing.................. Debt changes if students Based on Department No.
transfer to passing data.
program by program
performance, risk group,
and cohort; separately for
GE and non-GE programs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Assumptions for Calculation of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earnings gain...................... Average program earnings by Based on Department Yes.
risk group and program data.
performance, separately
for GE and non-GE programs.
Tax rates.......................... Federal and State average Hendren and Sprung- No.
marginal tax and transfer Keyser 2020 estimates
rates. based on CBO.
Instructional cost................. Average institution-level IPEDS................. No.
instructional expenditure
by risk group and program
performance; separately
for GE and non-GE programs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrollment Growth Assumptions
For AYs 2023 to 2034, the budget model assumes a constant yearly
rate of growth or decline in enrollment of students receiving title IV,
HEA program funds in GE and non-GE programs in absence of the
rule.\312\ We compute the average annual rate of change in title IV,
HEA enrollment from AY 2016 to AY 2022, separately by the combination
of control and credential level. We assume this rate of growth for each
type of program for AYs 2023 to 2034 when constructing our baseline
enrollment projections.\313\ Table 6.2 below reports the assumed
average annual percent change in title IV, HEA enrollment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\312\ AYs 2023 to 2034 are transformed to FYs 2023 to 2033 later
in the estimation process.
\313\ The number of programs in proprietary post-BA certificates
and proprietary professional degrees was too low to reliably compute
a growth rate. Therefore, we assumed a rate equal to the overall
proprietary rate of -0.4 percent.
Table 6.2--Annual Enrollment Growth Rate (Percent) Assumptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private,
Public nonprofit Proprietary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UG Certificates................................................. -2.6 -6.9 4.1
Associate....................................................... -3.7 -3.9 -3.7
Bachelor's...................................................... -0.5 -0.8 -2.7
Post-BA Certs................................................... 4.2 -2.3 -0.4
Master's........................................................ 3.0 0.5 -1.1
Doctoral........................................................ 4.9 3.1 -1.7
Professional.................................................... 0.9 -0.1 -0.4
Grad Certs...................................................... 1.2 2.0 -0.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Performance Transition Assumptions
The methodology, described in more detail below, models title IV,
HEA enrollment over time not for specific programs, but rather by
groupings of programs by broad credential level and control, the number
of alternative programs available, whether the program is GE or non-GE,
and whether the program passes or fails the D/E and EP metrics. The
model estimates the flow of students between these groups due to
changes in program performance over time and reflects assumptions for
the share of enrollment that would transition between the following
four performance categories in each year:
Passing (includes with and without data)
Failing D/E rate only
Failing EP rate only
Failing both D/E and EP rates
A GE program becomes ineligible if it fails either the D/E or EP
rate measures in two out of three consecutive years. We assume that
ineligible programs remain that way for all future years and,
therefore, do not model performance transitions after ineligibility is
reached. The model applies different assumptions for the first year of
transition (from year 2025 to 2026) and subsequent years (after 2026).
It assumes that the rates of program transition reach a steady state in
2027. We assume modest improvement in performance, indicated by a
reduction in the rate of failing and an increase in the rate of
passing, among programs that fail one of the metrics, and an increase
in the rate of passing again, among GE programs that pass the metrics.
All transition probabilities are estimated separately for GE and non-GE
programs and for four aggregate groups: proprietary 2-year or less;
public or nonprofit 2-year or less; 4-year programs; graduate
programs.\314\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\314\ The budget simulations separate lower and upper division
enrollment in 4-year programs. We assume the same program transition
rates for both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The assumptions for the 2025 to 2026 transition are taken directly
from an observed comparison of actual rates results for two consecutive
cohorts of students. The initial assignment of performance categories
in 2025 is based on the 2022 PPD for students who completed programs in
award years 2015 and 2016, whose earnings are measured in calendar
years 2018 and 2019. The program transition assumptions for 2025 to
2026 are based on the outcomes for this cohort of students along with
the earnings outcomes of students who completed programs in award years
2016 and 2017 (earnings measured in calendar years 2019 and 2020) and
debt of students who completed programs in award years 2017 and 2018. A
new set of D/E and EP metrics was computed for each program using this
additional two-year cohort. Programs with fewer than 30 completers or
with fewer than 30 completers with earnings records are determined to
be passing, though can transition out of this category between years.
The share of enrollment that transitions from each performance
[[Page 70157]]
category to another is computed separately for each group.\315\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\315\ In order to produce transition rates that are stable over
time and that do not include secular trends in passing or failing
rates (which are already reflected in our program growth
assumptions), we compute transition rates from Year 1 to Year 2 and
from Year 2 to Year 1 and average them to generate a stable rate
shown in the tables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The left panels of Tables 6.3 and 6.4 report the program transition
assumptions from 2025 to 2026 for non-GE and GE programs, respectively.
Program performance for non-GE is quite stable, with 95.8 percent of
passing enrollment in two-year or less public and nonprofit expected to
remain in passing programs. Persistence rates are even higher among 4-
year and graduate programs. Among programs that fail the EP threshold,
a relatively high share--more than one-third among 2-year and less
programs--would be at passing programs in a subsequent year. The
performance of GE programs is only slightly less persistent than that
of non-GE programs. Note that GE programs would become ineligible for
title IV, HEA funds the following year if they fail the same metric two
years in a row. Among enrollment in less than two-year proprietary
programs that fail the EP metric in 2025, 21.7 percent would pass in
2026 due to a combination of passing with data and no data.
The observed results also serve as the baseline for each subsequent
transition of results (2026 to 2027, 2027 to 2028, etc.). The model
applies additional assumptions from this baseline for each transition
beginning with 2026 to 2027. Because the baseline assumptions are the
actual observed results of programs based on a cohort of students that
completed programs prior to the Department's GE rulemaking efforts,
these transition assumptions do not account for changes that
institutions have made to their programs in response to the
Department's regulatory actions or would make after the final
regulations are published.
As done with analysis of the 2014 rule, the Department assumes that
institutions at risk of warning or sanction would take at least some
steps to improve program performance by improving program quality, job
placement, and lowering prices (leading to lower levels of debt),
beginning with the 2026 to 2027 transition. There is evidence that
institutions have responded to past GE measures by aiming to improve
outcomes or redirecting enrollment from low-performing programs.
Institutions subject to GE regulations have experienced slower
enrollment and those that pass GE thresholds tend to have a lower
likelihood of program or institution closure.\316\ Some leaders of
institutions subject to GE regulation in 2014 did make improvements,
such as lowering costs, increasing job placement and academic support
staff, and other changes.\317\ We account for this by increasing the
baseline observed probability of having a passing result by five
percentage points for programs with at least one failing metric in
2026. Additionally, we improve the baseline observed probability of
passing GE programs having a sequential passing result by two and a
half percentage points to capture the incentive that currently passing
programs have to remain that way. These new rates are shown in the
right panels of Tables 6.3 and 6.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\316\ Fountain, J. (2019). The Effect of the Gainful Employment
Regulatory Uncertainty on Student Enrollment at For-Profit
Institutions of Higher Education. Research in Higher Education,
Springer; Association for Institutional Research, vol. 60(8), 1065-
1089. Kelchen, R. & Liu, Z. (2022). Did Gainful Employment
Regulations Result in College and Program Closures? Education
Finance and Policy; 17 (3): 454-478.
\317\ Hentschke, G.C. & Parry, S.C. (2015). Innovation in Times
of Regulatory Uncertainty: Responses to the Threat of ``Gainful
Employment.'' Innov High Educ 40, 97-109 (doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9298-z).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We assume the same rates of transition between performance
categories for subsequent years as we do for the 2026 to 2027
transitions.
Since the budget impact and net costs, benefits, and transfers
depend on assumptions about institutional performance after the rule is
enacted, we incorporate alternative assumptions about these transitions
in our sensitivity analysis.
Table 6.3--Program Transition Assumptions Non-GE Programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent in year t+1 status (2026) Percent in year t+1 status (2027-2033)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fail D/E Fail EP Fail D/E Fail EP
Pass only only Fail Both Pass only only Fail Both
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public and Nonprofit 2-year or less
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year t Status:
Pass............................................... 95.8 0.0 4.1 0.1 95.8 0.0 4.1 0.1
Fail D/E only...................................... 10.1 84.3 1.6 4.1 15.1 79.3 1.6 4.1
Fail EP only....................................... 37.7 0.1 62.1 0.1 42.7 0.1 57.1 0.1
Fail Both.......................................... 22.2 6.5 8.6 62.7 27.2 6.5 8.6 57.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year t Status:
Pass............................................... 99.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 99.1 0.3 0.4 0.2
Fail D/E only...................................... 28.8 63.6 0.7 6.9 33.8 58.6 0.7 6.9
Fail EP only....................................... 45.5 1.1 48.1 5.3 50.5 1.1 43.1 5.3
Fail Both.......................................... 24.3 11.3 5.4 59.0 29.3 11.3 5.4 54.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graduate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year t Status:
Pass............................................... 98.3 1.6 0.0 0.0 98.3 1.6 0.0 0.0
Fail D/E only...................................... 29.2 69.3 0.0 1.5 34.2 64.3 0.0 1.5
Fail EP only....................................... 72.4 0.0 17.9 9.7 77.4 0.0 12.9 9.7
Fail Both.......................................... 20.2 44.3 2.7 32.7 25.2 44.3 2.7 27.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70158]]
Table 6.4--Program Transition Assumptions GE Programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share in year t+1 status (2026) Share in year t+1 status (2027-2033)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fail D/E Fail EP Fail D/E Fail EP
Pass only only Fail Both Pass only only Fail Both
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proprietary 2-year or less
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year t Status:
Pass............................................... 91.1 2.3 5.8 0.9 93.6 1.7 4.2 0.6
Fail D/E only...................................... 18.8 66.7 0.2 14.4 23.8 61.7 0.2 14.4
Fail EP only....................................... 10.7 0.0 82.1 7.2 15.7 0.0 77.1 7.2
Fail Both.......................................... 3.4 7.2 15.8 73.6 8.4 7.2 15.8 68.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public and Nonprofit 2-year or less
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year t Status:
Pass............................................... 95.8 0.0 4.1 0.1 98.3 0.0 1.7 0.1
Fail D/E only...................................... 60.5 0.0 0.0 39.5 65.5 0.0 0.0 34.5
Fail EP only....................................... 47.3 0.0 51.8 0.8 52.3 0.0 46.8 0.8
Fail Both.......................................... 29.1 29.2 8.9 32.7 34.1 29.2 8.9 27.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year t Status:
Pass............................................... 94.1 5.4 0.0 0.4 96.6 3.1 0.0 0.2
Fail D/E only...................................... 21.4 70.3 0.0 8.3 26.4 65.3 0.0 8.3
Fail EP only....................................... 2.4 4.9 0.0 92.7 7.4 4.9 0.0 87.7
Fail Both.......................................... 5.4 32.2 1.5 60.9 10.4 32.2 1.5 55.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graduate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year t Status:
Pass............................................... 97.0 2.9 0.0 0.1 99.5 0.5 0.0 0.0
Fail D/E only...................................... 19.9 77.7 0.0 2.4 24.9 72.7 0.0 2.4
Fail EP only....................................... 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fail Both.......................................... 8.7 37.4 0.0 53.9 13.7 37.4 0.0 48.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student Response Assumptions
The Department's model applies assumptions for the probability that
a current or potential student would transfer or choose a different
program, remain in or choose the same program, or withdraw from or not
enroll in any postsecondary program in reaction to a program's
performance. The model assumes that student response would be greater
when a program becomes ineligible for title IV, HEA aid than when a
program has a single year of inadequate performance, which initiates
warnings and the acknowledgment requirement for GE programs, an
acknowledgment requirement non-GE programs that fail D/E, and publicly
reported performance information in the ED portal for both GE and non-
GE programs. We also let the rates of transfer and withdrawal or non-
enrollment differ with the number of alternative transfer options
available to students enrolled (or planning to enroll) in a failing
program. Specifically, building on the analysis presented in
``Measuring Students' Alternative Options'' above, we categorize
individual programs into one of four categories:
High transfer options: Have at least one passing program
in the same credential level at the same institution and in a related
field (as indicated by being in the same 2-digit CIP code).
Medium transfer options: Have a passing transfer option
within the same ZIP3, credential level, and narrow field (4-digit CIP
code).
Low transfer options: Have a passing transfer option
within the same ZIP3, credential level, and broad (2-digit) CIP code.
Few transfer options: Do not have a passing transfer
option within the same ZIP3, credential level, and broad (2-digit) CIP
code. Students in these programs would be required to enroll in either
a distance education program or enroll outside their ZIP3. As shown in
``Measuring Students' Alternative Options,'' all failing programs have
at least one non-failing program in the same credential level and 2-
digit CIP code in the same State.
For each of the four categories above, we make assumptions for each
type of student transition. Programs with passing metrics are assumed
to retain all of their students.
Students that transfer are assumed to transfer to passing programs,
and for the purposes of the budget simulation this includes programs
with an insufficient n-size. We assume that rates of withdrawal (or
non-enrollment) and transfer are higher for ineligible programs than
those where only the warning/acknowledgment is required (GE programs
with one year of a failing metric and non-GE programs with a failing D/
E metric). We also assume that rates of transfer are weakly decreasing
(and rates of dropout and remaining in program are both weakly
increasing) as programs have fewer transfer options. These assumptions
regarding student responses to program results are provided in Tables
6.5 and 6.6. Coupled with the scenarios presented in the ``Sensitivity
Analysis,'' these assumptions are intended to provide a reasonable
estimation of the range of impact that the regulations could have on
the budget and overall social costs, benefits, and transfers.
The assumptions above are based on our best judgment and from
extant research that we view as reasonable guides to the share of
students likely to transfer to or choose another program when their
program loses title IV, HEA eligibility. For instance, a 2021 GAO
report found that about half of non-completing students who were at
closed institutions transferred.\318\ This magnitude is similar to
recent analysis that found that 47 percent of students
[[Page 70159]]
reenrolled after an institutional closure.\319\ The authors of this
report find very little movement from public or nonprofit institutions
into for-profit institutions, but considerable movement in the other
direction. For example, about half of re-enrollees at closed for-profit
2-year institutions moved to public 2-year institutions, whereas less
than 3 percent of re-enrollees at closed public and private nonprofit
4-year institutions moved to for-profit institutions. Other evidence
from historical cohort default rate sanctions indicates a transfer rate
of about half of students at for-profit colleges that were subject to
loss of Federal financial aid disbursement eligibility, with much of
that shift to public two-year institutions.\320\ The Department also
conducted its own internal analysis of ITT Technical Institute
closures. About half of students subject to the closure re-enrolled
elsewhere (relative to pre-closure patterns). The majority of students
that re-enrolled did so in the same two-digit CIP code. Of associate
degree students that re-enrolled, 45 percent transferred to a public
institution, 41 percent transferred to a different for-profit
institution, and 13 percent transferred to a private nonprofit
institution. Most remained in associate or certificate programs. Of
bachelor's degree students that re-enrolled, 54 percent transferred to
a different for-profit institution, 25 percent shifted to a public
institution, and 21 percent transferred to a private nonprofit
institution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\318\ Government Accountability Office (2022). College Closures:
Education Should Improve Outreach to Borrowers about Loan Discharges
(GAO-22-104403) (https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104403).
\319\ State Higher Ed. Executive Officers Ass'n (2022). More
than 100,000 Students Experienced an Abrupt Campus Closure Between
July 2004 and June 2020 (sheeo.org/more-than-100000-students-experienced-an-abrupt-campus-closure-between-july-2004-and-june-2020/).
\320\ Cellini, S.R., Darolia, R. & Turner, L.J. (2020). Where Do
Students Go When For-Profit Colleges Lose Federal Aid? American
Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 12(2), 46-83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data from the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal 2012/
2017 study provides further information on students' general patterns
through and across postsecondary institutions (not specific to
responses to sanctions or closures). Of students that started at a
public or private nonprofit 4-year institution, about 3 percent shifted
to a for-profit institution within 5 years. Of those that began at a
public or private nonprofit 2-year institution, about 8 percent shifted
to a for-profit institution within 5 years.
The attestations for non-GE programs are scheduled to begin the
year following the attestations for GE programs. Therefore, we delay
applying transfer rates to non-GE programs in the first year of our
budget analysis. Additionally, since undergraduate associate and
bachelor's degree programs will not have an attestation requirement, we
decrease the rate of transfer out by one quarter for these programs.
Table 6.5--Student Response Assumptions, by Program Result and Number of Alternative Program Options Available
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program result [rarr] Pass Fail once Ineligible
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Withdrawal/
Student Response [rarr] Remain Transfer Withdrawal/ Remain Transfer Withdrawal/ Remain Transfer non-
non-enrollment non-enrollment enrollment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GE:
High Alternatives................... 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.45 0.15 0.20 0.60 0.20
Medium Alternatives................. 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.35 0.20 0.20 0.55 0.25
Low Alternatives.................... 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.30 0.20 0.25 0.45 0.30
Few Alternatives.................... 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.25 0.20 0.25 0.35 0.40
Non-GE, Attestation:
High Alternatives................... 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.20 0.00 na na na
Medium Alternatives................. 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.15 0.00 na na na
Low Alternatives.................... 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.10 0.00 na na na
Few Alternatives.................... 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.05 0.00 na na na
Non-GE, No Attestation:
High Alternatives................... 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.15 0.00 na na na
Medium Alternatives................. 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.8875 0.1125 0.00 na na na
Low Alternatives.................... 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.925 0.075 0.00 na na na
Few Alternatives.................... 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.9625 0.0375 0.00 na na na
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Table 6.6, we provide detail of the assumptions of the
destinations among students who transfer, separately for the following
groups:\321\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\321\ Lower division includes students in their first two years
of undergraduate education. Upper division includes students in
their third year or higher.
Risk 1 (Proprietary <=2 year)
Risk 2 (Public, Nonprofit <=2 year)
Risk 3 (Lower division 4 year)
Risk 4 (Upper division 4 year)
Risk 5 (Graduate)
Table 6.6--Student Response Assumptions, Among Transferring Students, Share Shifting Sectors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shift to GE programs Shift to non-GE programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shift from . . . Risk 1 Risk 2 Risk 3 Risk 4 Risk 5 Risk 2 Risk 3 Risk 4 Risk 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GE:
Risk 1.......................................... 0.50 0.30 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
Risk 2.......................................... 0.30 0.50 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
Risk 3.......................................... 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00
Risk 4.......................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00
Risk 5.......................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20
Non-GE:
Risk 2.......................................... 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.20 0.00 0.00
Risk 3.......................................... 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.90 0.00 0.00
Risk 4.......................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00
[[Page 70160]]
Risk 5.......................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we describe below, the assumptions for student responses are
applied to the estimated enrollment in each aggregate group after
factoring in enrollment growth.
Student Borrowing Assumptions
Analyses in the Regulatory Impact Analysis of the 2014 Prior Rule
assumed that student debt was unchanged if students transferred from
failing to passing programs, but we believe this assumption to be too
conservative given that one goal of the GE rule is to reduce the debt
burden of students. Recall that Tables 4.29 and 4.30 above reported the
percent difference in mean debt between failing GE and non-GE programs
and their transfer options, by credential level and 2-digit CIP code.
Across all subjects and credential levels, debt is 22 percent lower at
alternative programs than at failing GE programs. At non-GE programs,
there is no aggregate debt difference between failing programs and
their alternatives, though this masks heterogeneity across credential
levels. For graduate degree programs, movement to alternative programs
from failing programs is associated with lower debt levels while
movement from failing to passing Associate programs is associated with
an increase in debt. Students that drop out of (or decline to enroll
in) failing programs are assumed to acquire no educational debt.
To incorporate changes in average loan volume associated with
student transitions, we compute average subsidized and unsubsidized
direct loan, Grad PLUS, and Parent PLUS per enrollment separately for
GE and non-GE programs by risk group and program performance group.
These averages are then applied to shifts in enrollment to generate
changes in the amount of aid.
Methodology for Net Budget Impact
The budget model estimates a yearly enrollment for AYs 2023 to 2034
and the distribution of those enrollments in programs characterized by
D/E and EP performance, risk group, transfer category, and whether it
is a GE program. This enrollment is projected for a baseline (in
absence of the rule) and under the final rule. The net budget impact
for each year is calculated by applying assumptions regarding the
average amount of title IV, HEA program funds received by this
distribution of enrollments across groups of programs. The difference
in these two scenarios provides the Department's estimate of the impact
of the final rule. We do not simulate the impact on the rule at the
individual program level because doing so would necessitate very
specific assumptions about which programs' students transfer to in
response to the regulations. While we made such assumptions in the
``Measuring Students' Alternatives'' section above, we do not think it
is analytically tractable to do for all years. Therefore, for the
purposes of budget modeling, we perform analysis with aggregations of
programs into groups defined by the following: \322\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\322\ Note that non-GE programs do not include risk group 1 (2-
year and below for-profit institutions) or the pre-ineligible or
ineligible performance categories. Some groups also do not have all
four transfer group categories. There are 184 total groups used in
the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five student loan model risk groups: (1) 2-year (and
below) for-profit; (2) 2-year (and below) public or nonprofit; (3) 4-
year (any control) lower division, which is students in their first two
years of a bachelor's program; (4) 4-year (any control) upper division,
which is students beyond their first two years of a bachelor's program;
(5) Graduate student (any control).
Four transfer categories (high, medium, low, few
alternatives) by which the student transfer rates are assumed to
differ. This is a program-level characteristic that is assumed not to
change.
Two GE program categories (GE and eligible non-GE) by
which the program transitions are assumed to differ.
Six performance categories: Pass, Fail D/E, Fail EP, Fail
Both, Pre-ineligible (a program's current enrollment is Title IV, HEA
eligible, but next year's enrollment would not be), Ineligible (current
enrollment is not Title IV, HEA eligible).
We refer to groups defined by these characteristics as ``program
aggregate'' groups.
We first generate a projected baseline (in absence of the final
rule) enrollment, Pell grant volume, and loan volume for each of the
program aggregate groups from AYs 2023 to 2034. This baseline
projection includes several steps. First, we compute average annual
growth rate for each control by credential level from 2016 to 2022.
These growth rates are presented in Table 6.2. We then apply these
annual growth rates to the actual enrollment by program in 2022 to
forecast enrollment in each program in 2023. This step is repeated for
each year to get projected enrollment by program through 2034. We then
compute average Pell, subsidized and unsubsidized direct loan, Grad
PLUS, and Parent PLUS per enrollment by risk group, program performance
group, and GE vs. non-GE for 2022. These averages are then adjusted
according to the PB2024 loan volume and Pell grant baseline assumptions
for the change in average loan by loan type and the change in average
Pell grant. We then multiply the projected enrollment for each program
by these average aid amounts to get projected total aid volume by
program through 2034. Finally, we sum the enrollment and aid amounts
across programs for each year to get enrollment and aid volume by
program aggregate group, AYs 2023 to 2034, and shift the baseline Pell
and loan volume from AYs 2023 to 2034 to FYs 2023 to 2033 for
calculating budget cost estimates.
The most significant task is to generate projected enrollment, Pell
volume, and loan volume for each of the program aggregate groups from
2023 to 2033 with the rule in place. We assume the first set of rates
would be released in 2025 award year, so this is starting year for our
projections. Projecting counterfactual enrollment and aid volumes
involves several steps:
Step 1: Start with the enrollment by program aggregate group in
2025. In this first year there are no programs that are ineligible for
Title IV, HEA funding.
Step 2: Apply the student transition assumptions to the enrollment
by program aggregate group. This generates estimates of the enrollment
that is expected to remain enrolled in the program aggregate group, the
enrollment that is expected to drop out of postsecondary enrollment,
and the enrollment that is expected to transfer to a different program
aggregate group.
Step 3: Compute new estimated enrollment for the start of 2026
(before the second program performance is revealed) for each cell by
adding the
[[Page 70161]]
remaining enrollment to the enrollment that is expected to transfer
into that group. We assume that (1) students transfer from failing or
ineligible programs to passing programs in the same transfer group and
GE program group; (2) Students in risk groups 3 (lower division 4-
year), 4 (upper division 4-year college) or 5 (graduate) stay in those
risk groups; (3) Students in risk group 1 can shift to risk groups 2 or
3; (4) Students in risk group 2 can shift to risk groups 1 or 3.
Therefore, we permit enrollment to shift between proprietary and public
or nonprofit certificate programs and from certificate and associate
programs to lower--division bachelor's programs. We also allow
enrollment to shift between GE and non-GE program, based on the
assumptions listed in Table 6.6.
Step 4: Determine the change in aggregate baseline enrollment
between 2025 and 2026 for each risk group and allocate these additional
enrollments to each program aggregate group in proportion to the group
enrollment computed in Step 3.
Step 5: Apply the program transition assumptions to the aggregate
group enrollment from Step 4. This results in estimates of the
enrollment that would stay within or shift from each performance
category to another performance category in the next year. This mapping
would differ for GE and non-GE programs and by risk group, as reported
in Tables 6.3 and 6.4 above. For non-GE programs, every performance
category can shift enrollment to every performance category. For GE
programs, however, enrollment in each failure category would not remain
in the same category because if a metric is failed twice, this
enrollment would move to pre-ineligibility. The possible program
transitions for GE programs are:
Pass [rarr] Pass, Fail D/E, Fail EP, Fail Both
Fail D/E [rarr] Pass, Fail EP, Pre-Ineligible
Fail EP [rarr] Pass, Fail D/E, Pre-Ineligible
Fail Both [rarr] Pass, Pre-Ineligible
Step 6: Compute new estimated enrollment at end of 2026 (after
program performance is revealed) for each program aggregate group by
adding the number that stay in the same performance category plus the
number that shift from other performance categories.
Step 7: Repeat steps 1 to 6 above using the end of 2026 enrollment
by group as the starting point for 2027 and repeat through 2034. The
only addition is that in Step 5, two more program transitions are
possible for GE programs: Pre-Ineligible moves to Ineligible and
Ineligible remains Ineligible.
Step 8: Generate projected Pell grant and loan volume by program
aggregate group from AYs 2023 to 2034 under the rule. We multiply the
projected enrollment by group by average aid amounts (Pell and loan
volume) to get projected total aid amounts by group through 2034. Any
enrollment that has dropped out (not enrolled in postsecondary) or in
the ineligible category get zero Pell and loan amounts. Note that the
average aid amounts by cell come from the PB projections, so are
allowed to vary over time.
Step 9: Shift Pell grant and loan volume under the rule from AYs
2025 to 2034 to FYs 2025 to 2033 for calculating budget cost estimates.
A net savings for the title IV, HEA programs comes through four
mechanisms. The primary source is from students who drop out of
postsecondary education in the year after their program receives a
failing D/E or EP rate or becomes ineligible. The second is for the
smaller number of students who remain enrolled at a program that
becomes ineligible for title IV, HEA program funds. Third, we assume a
budget impact on the title IV, HEA programs from students who transfer
from programs that are failing to better-performing programs because
the typical aid levels differ between programs according to risk group
and program performance. For instance, subsidized Direct Loan borrowing
is 24 percent less ($2044 vs. $1547) for students at GE programs
failing the D/E metric in risk group 1 than in passing programs in the
same risk group in 2026.
Finally, consistent with the requirements of the Credit Reform Act
of 1990, budget cost estimates for the title IV, HEA programs also
reflect the estimated net present value of all future non-
administrative Federal costs associated with a cohort of loans. To
determine the estimated budget impact from reduced loan volume, the
difference in yearly loan volumes between the baseline and policy
scenarios were calculated as a percent of baseline scenario volumes.
This generated an adjustment factor that was applied to loan volumes in
the Student Loan Model (SLM) for each cohort, loan type, and risk group
combination in the President's Budget for FY2024 (PB2024). The reduced
loan volumes are also expected to result in some decrease in future
consolidations which is also captured in the model run. Since the
implied subsidy rate for each loan type differs by risk group,
enrollment shifts to risk groups with greater expected repayment would
generate a net budget savings. Since our analysis does not incorporate
differences in subsidy rates between programs in the same risk group,
such as between programs passing and failing the D/E or EP metrics,
these estimates potentially understate the increase in expected
repayment resulting from the regulations.
Methodology for Costs, Benefits, and Transfers
The estimated enrollment in each aggregate program group is used to
quantify the costs, benefits, and transfers resulting from the
regulations for each year from 2023 to 2033. As described in the
Discussion of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers, we quantify an earnings
gain for students from attending higher financial value programs and
the additional tax revenue that comes from that additional earnings. We
quantify the cost associated with additional instructional expenses to
educate students who shift to different types of programs and the
transfer of instructional expenses as students shift programs. We also
estimate the transfer of title IV, HEA program funds from programs that
lose students to programs that gain students.
Earnings Gain Benefit
A major goal of greater transparency and accountability is to shift
students towards higher financial value programs--those with greater
earnings potential, lower debt, or both. To quantify the earnings gain
associated with the final rule, we estimate the aggregate annual
earnings of would-be program graduates under the baseline and policy
scenarios and take the difference. For each risk group and program
performance group, we compute the enrollment-weighted average of median
program earnings. Average earnings for programs that have become
ineligible is assumed to be the average of median earnings for programs
in the three failing categories, weighted by the enrollment share in
these categories. This captures, for instance, that the earnings of 2-
year programs that become ineligible are quite lower than those that
enroll graduate students. Since we have simulated enrollment, but not
completion, annual program enrollment is converted into annual program
completions by applying a ratio that differs for 2-year programs or
less, bachelor's degree programs, or graduate
[[Page 70162]]
programs.\323\ Earnings for students that do not complete are not
available and not included in our calculations. Students that drop out
of failing programs (or decline to enroll altogether) are assumed to
receive earnings equal to the median earnings of high school graduates
in the State (the same measure used for the Earnings Threshold).
Therefore, earnings could increase for this group if students reduce
enrollment in programs leading to earnings less than a high school
graduate. We estimate aggregate earnings by program group by
multiplying enrollment by average earnings, reported in Table 6.7, and
the completion ratio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\323\ The ratios used are 11.5% for programs of 2-year or less,
16.5% for bachelor's programs, and 27.3% for graduate programs.
These are the ratio between number of title IV, HEA completers in
the two-year earnings cohort and the average title IV, HEA
enrollment in the 2016 and 2017 Award Years.
Table 6.7--Average Program Earnings by Group
[$2019]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fail EP
Pass Fall D/E only Fail both Ineligible
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GE Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proprietary 2yr or less........................ 39,233 28,672 20,414 18,531 21,308
Public/Nonprofit (NP) 2yr or less.............. 37,274 30,234 20,188 20,630 20,254
Bachelor Lower................................. 51,663 31,102 24,048 23,227 30,513
Bachelor Upper................................. 51,663 31,102 24,048 23,227 30,513
Graduate....................................... 67,615 46,433 15,891 19,972 44,890
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-GE Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public/NP 2yr or less.......................... 36,492 29,522 23,642 19,388 N/A
Bachelor Lower................................. 47,839 29,158 21,508 21,925 N/A
Bachelor Upper................................. 47,839 29,158 21,508 21,925 N/A
Graduate....................................... 76,619 58,444 19,765 22,747 N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Students experience earnings gain each year they work following
program completion. We compute the earnings benefit over the analysis
window by giving 2026 completers 7 years of earnings gains, 2027
completers 6 years of earnings gains, and so on. The earnings gain of
students that graduate during 2033 are only measured for one year. In
reality program graduates would experience an earnings gain annually
over their entire working career; our estimates likely understate the
total likely earnings benefit of the policy.
However, our approach can overstate the earnings gain of students
that shift programs if students experience a smaller earnings gain than
the average difference between passing and failing programs within each
GE-by-risk group in Table 6.7. To account for this, we apply an
additional adjustment factor to the aggregate earnings difference to
quantify how much of the earnings difference is accounted for by
programs.
There is no consensus in the research literature on the magnitude
of this parameter, with some studies finding very large impacts of
specific programs or institutions on earnings \324\ and others finding
smaller impacts.\325\ Unfortunately, many of these studies are set in
specific contexts (e.g. only public four-year universities in one
State) and most look at institutions overall rather than programs,
which may not extrapolate to our setting given the large outcome
variation across programs in the same institution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\324\ Hoekstra, Mark (2009). The Effect of Attending the
Flagship State University on Earnings: A Discontinuity-Based
Approach. Review of Economics and Statistics, 91 (4): 717-724.
Hoxby, C.M. (2019). The Productivity of US Postsecondary
Institutions. In Productivity in Higher Education, Hoxby, C.M. &
K.M. Stange, K.M. (eds.). University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Andrews, R.J. & Stange, K.M. (2019). Price Regulation, Price
Discrimination, and Equality of Opportunity in Higher Education:
Evidence from Texas. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy,
11.4, 31-65. Andrews, Rodney, Imberman, Scott, Lovenheim, Michael &
Stange, Kevin (Aug. 2022). The Returns to College Major Choice:
Average and Distributional Effects, Career Trajectories, and
Earnings Variability. NBER Working Paper 30331.
\325\ Mountjoy, Jack & Hickman, Brent (Sept. 2021). The Returns
to College(s): Relative Value-Added and Match Effects in Higher
Education. NBER Working Paper 29276.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To select the value used for this adjustment factor, we compared
the average earnings difference between passing and failing programs
(conditional on credential level) before versus after controlling for
the rich demographic characteristics described in ``Student Demographic
Analysis'' (specifically, the share of students in each race/ethnic
category, the share of students that are male, independent, first-
generation, and a Pell grant recipient, and the average family income
of students).\326\ Based on this analysis, our primary estimates adjust
the raw earnings difference in Table 6.7 down using an adjustment
factor of 75 percent. Given the uncertainty around the proper
adjustment factor to use, we include a range of values in the
sensitivity analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\326\ Note that both the ``raw'' and fully controlled
regressions include indicators for credential level, as enrollment
is not permitted to move across credential levels in our budget
simulations other than modest shift from 2-year programs to lower-
division four-year programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the analysis of alternative options above, we showed the
expected change in earnings for students that transfer from failing
programs for each credential-level by 2-digit CIP code. Across all
credential levels, students that shift from failing GE programs were
expected to increase annual earnings by about 43 percent and those
transferring from failing non-GE programs were expected to increase
annual earnings by about 21 percent. These estimates are in line with
those from Table 6.7 and used in the benefit impact.
Fiscal Externality Benefit
The increased earnings of program graduates would generate
additional Federal and State tax revenue and reductions in transfer
program expenditure. To the earnings gain, we multiply an average
marginal tax and transfer rate of 18.6 percent to estimate the fiscal
benefit. This rate was computed in Hendren and Sprung-Keyser (2020)
specifically to estimate the fiscal externality of earnings gains
stemming from improvement in college quality, so it is appropriate for
use in our setting.\327\ The rate is derived from
[[Page 70163]]
2016 CBO estimates and includes Federal and State income taxes and
transfers from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) but
excludes payroll taxes, housing vouchers, and other safety-net
programs. Note that this benefit is not included in our budget impact
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\327\ Hendren, Nathaniel & Sprung-Keyser, Ben (2020). A Unified
Welfare Analysis of Government Policies. Quarterly Journal of
Economics 135 (3): 1209-1318.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructional Spending Cost and Transfer
To determine the additional cost of educating students that shift
from one type of program to another or the cost savings from students
who chose not to enroll, we estimate the aggregate annual instructional
spending under the baseline and policy scenarios and take the
difference. We used the instructional expense per FTE enrollee data
from IPEDS to calculate the enrollment-weighted average institutional-
level instructional expense per FTE student for programs by risk group
and performance result, separately for GE programs and non-GE programs.
Average spending for programs that have become ineligible is assumed to
be the average of the three failing categories, weighted by the
enrollment share in these categories. These estimates are reported in
Table 6.8. We estimate aggregate spending by program group by
multiplying enrollment from 2023 through 2033 by average spending.
Table 6.8--Average Instructional Cost per FTE by Group
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pass Fall D/E Fail EP only Fail both Ineligible
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GE Programs: ......... ......... .............. .......... ...........
Proprietary 2yr or less...................... 4,341 3,007 4,442 3,990 4,106
Public/NP 2yr or less........................ 7,325 5,859 4,984 3,688 4,873
Bachelor Lower............................... 3,668 2,655 3,047 3,644 2,728
Bachelor Upper............................... 3,668 2,655 3,047 3,644 2,728
Graduate..................................... 5,294 3,837 1,837 5,151 3,910
Non-GE Programs: ......... ......... .............. .......... ...........
Public/NP 2yr or less........................ 6,408 5,187 5,959 4,361 N/A
Bachelor Lower............................... 11,263 7,563 9,036 12,021 N/A
Bachelor Upper............................... 11,263 7,563 9,036 12,021 N/A
Graduate..................................... 15,666 16,434 7,528 24,355 N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that since we are using institution-level rather than program-
level spending, this will not fully capture spending differences
between undergraduate and graduate enrollment, between upper and lower
division, and across field of study.\328\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\328\ This may cause our estimates to slightly understate the
instructional cost impact since failing programs are
disproportionately in lower-earning fields and lower credential
levels, which tend to have lower instructional costs. Though we
anticipate most movement will be within field and credential level,
which would mute this effect. See Hemelt, Steven W., Stange, Kevin
M., Furquim, Fernando, Simon, Andrew & Sawyer, John E. (2021). Why
Is Math Cheaper than English? Understanding Cost Differences in
Higher Education. Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 39(2), pages 397-
435.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the transfer of instructional expenses from failing to
passing programs, we multiply the average instructional expense per
enrollee shown in Table 6.7 by the estimated number of annual student
transfers for 2023 to 2033 from each risk group and failing category.
Student Aid Transfers
To calculate the amounts of student aid that could transfer with
students each year, we multiply the estimated number of students
receiving title IV, HEA program funds transferring from ineligible or
failing GE and non-GE programs to passing programs in each risk
category each year by the average Pell grant, Stafford subsidized loan,
unsubsidized loan, PLUS loan, and GRAD PLUS loan per enrollment in the
same categories.
To annualize the amount of benefits, costs, and title IV, HEA
program fund transfers from 2023 to 2033, we calculate the net present
value (NPV) of the yearly amounts using a discount rate of 3 percent
and a discount rate of 7 percent and annualize it over 10 years.
7. Net Budget Impacts
These final regulations are estimated to have a net Federal budget
impact of $-13.8 billion, consisting of $-7.4 billion in reduced Pell
grants and $-6.4 billion for loan cohorts 2024 to 2033.\329\ A cohort
reflects all loans originated in a given fiscal year. Consistent with
the requirements of the Credit Reform Act of 1990, budget cost
estimates for the student loan programs reflect the estimated net
present value of all future non-administrative Federal costs associated
with a cohort of loans. The baseline for estimating the cost of these
final regulations is the President's Budget for 2024 (PB2024) as
modified for the finalization of the SAVE plan included in the final
rule published July 10, 2023.\330\ This estimated net budget impact
addresses the GE and Financial Transparency provisions, as described
below. The provisions related to Financial Responsibility,
Administrative Capability, Certification Procedures, and Ability to
Benefit that were included in the NPRM published on May 19, 2023, will
be addressed in a forthcoming separate document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\329\ Since the policy is not estimated to shift enrollment
until AY 2026 (which includes part of FY 2025), we present
enrollment and budget impacts starting in 2025. Impacts in both AY
and FY 2024 are zero.
\330\ 88 FR 43820 (July 10, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gainful Employment and Financial Transparency
The final regulations are estimated to shift enrollment towards
programs with lower debt-to-earnings or higher median earnings or both,
and away from programs that fail either of the two performance metrics.
The vast majority of students are assumed to resume their education at
the same or another program in the event they are warned about poor
program performance or if their program loses eligibility. The final
regulations are also estimated to reduce overall enrollment, as some
students decide to not enroll. Table 7.1 summarize the main enrollment
results for non-GE programs. Enrollment in non-GE programs is expected
to increase by about 0.6 percent relative to baseline over the budget
period. There is a modest enrollment shift towards programs that pass
both metrics, with a particularly large (proportionate) reduction in
the share of enrollment in programs that fail D/E. By the end of the
analysis window, 96.0 percent of enrollment is expected to be in
passing programs.
[[Page 70164]]
Table 7.1--Primary Enrollment Estimate
[Non-GE programs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Aggregate Enrollment (millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................... 14.12 13.97 13.84 13.71 13.59 13.47 13.36 13.26 13.17
Policy......................... 14.12 14.01 13.89 13.78 13.66 13.54 13.43 13.33 13.22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Enrollment by Program Performance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pass:
Baseline................... 95.9 96.0 96.0 96.1 96.1 96.1 96.2 96.2 96.2
Policy..................... 95.9 95.7 96.1 96.3 96.5 96.5 96.6 96.6 96.7
Fail D/E:
Baseline................... 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Policy..................... 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3
Fail EP:
Baseline................... 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7
Policy..................... 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7
Fail Both:
Baseline................... 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Policy..................... 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7.2 reports comparable estimates for GE programs. Note that
for GE programs we estimate enrollment in two additional categories:
Pre-Ineligible, i.e., programs that would be ineligible for title IV,
HEA aid the following year; and Ineligible. Enrollment in GE programs
is projected to decline by 9 percent relative to baseline, with the
largest marginal decline in the first-year programs become ineligible.
There is a large enrollment shift towards programs that pass both
metrics, with a particularly large reduction in the share of enrollment
in programs that fail EP. By the end of the analysis window, 95.0
percent of enrollment is expected to be in passing programs, compared
to 71.8 percent in the baseline scenario.
Table 7.2--Primary Enrollment Estimate
[GE programs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Aggregate Enrollment (millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................... 2.63 2.61 2.60 2.60 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.60
Policy......................... 2.63 2.47 2.43 2.43 2.42 2.41 2.39 2.37 2.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Enrollment by Program Performance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pass:
Baseline................... 76.2 75.7 75.3 74.8 74.3 73.8 73.3 72.8 72.3
Policy..................... 76.2 85.1 91.5 93.5 94.3 94.6 94.8 94.8 94.9
Fail D/E:
Baseline................... 6.5 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
Policy..................... 6.5 2.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Fail EP:
Baseline................... 13.9 14.4 14.9 15.5 16.0 16.6 17.2 17.8 18.4
Policy..................... 13.9 1.9 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Fail Both:
Baseline................... 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.
Policy..................... 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Pre-Inelig:
Baseline................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Policy..................... 0.0 9.9 3.3 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
Inelig:
Baseline................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Policy..................... 0.0 2.2 1.8 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For non-GE programs, these shifts occur primarily across programs
that have different performance in the same loan risk category, with a
very modest shift from public and nonprofit two-year and less programs
to lower-division 4-year programs. This is shown in Table 7.3. Shifts
away from the public and nonprofit two-year sector within non-GE
programs is partially offset from shifts into these programs from
failing GE programs. Recall that in ``Transfer Causes Net Enrollment
Increase in Some Sectors'' above we showed that the vast majority of
community colleges would gain enrollment from the regulations.
[[Page 70165]]
Table 7.3--Primary Enrollment Estimates by Risk Group
[Non-GE programs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Total Enrollment by Loan Risk Category (Millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public/NP 2-year & below:
Baseline................... 3.02 2.91 2.80 2.70 2.61 2.51 2.42 2.34 2.25
Policy..................... 3.02 2.92 2.82 2.72 2.62 2.53 2.44 2.35 2.26
4-year (lower):
Baseline................... 6.10 6.03 5.96 5.90 5.83 5.77 5.71 5.65 5.59
Policy..................... 6.10 6.04 5.99 5.93 5.87 5.82 5.76 5.70 5.64
4-year (upper):
Baseline................... 2.57 2.55 2.54 2.52 2.50 2.49 2.47 2.45 2.44
Policy..................... 2.57 2.55 2.54 2.53 2.51 2.49 2.48 2.46 2.45
Graduate:
Baseline................... 2.43 2.48 2.53 2.59 2.64 2.70 2.76 2.82 2.88
Policy..................... 2.43 2.49 2.54 2.59 2.65 2.70 2.76 2.82 2.87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Enrollment by Loan Risk Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public/NP 2-year & below:
Baseline................... 21.38 20.82 20.27 19.73 19.19 18.66 18.14 17.62 17.11
Policy..................... 21.38 20.87 20.32 19.77 19.22 18.67 18.13 17.61 17.09
4-year (lower):
Baseline................... 43.19 43.14 43.09 43.02 42.94 42.84 42.73 42.62 42.48
Policy..................... 43.19 43.13 43.10 43.06 43.01 42.95 42.87 42.77 42.66
4-year (upper):
Baseline................... 18.20 18.26 18.33 18.38 18.42 18.45 18.48 18.50 18.51
Policy..................... 18.20 18.24 18.29 18.33 18.38 18.42 18.46 18.49 18.51
Graduate:
Baseline................... 17.23 17.77 18.32 18.88 19.46 20.05 20.65 21.26 21.89
Policy..................... 17.23 17.61 17.50 17.64 17.73 17.76 17.76 17.75 17.72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7.4--reports a similar breakdown for GE programs. Shifts to
passing programs are accompanied by a shift away from proprietary two-
year and below programs and towards public and nonprofit programs of
similar length, along with a more modest shift towards lower-division
4-year programs.
Table 7.4--Primary Enrollment Estimates by Risk Group
[GE programs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Total Enrollment by Loan Risk Category (Millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prop. 2-year & below:
Baseline................... 0.72 0.75 0.77 0.80 0.83 0.86 0.89 0.92 0.95
Policy..................... 0.72 0.62 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.61
Public/NP 2-year & below:
Baseline................... 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.49 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.43
Policy..................... 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55
4-year (lower):
Baseline................... 0.78 0.77 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.71 0.70 0.69 0.68
Policy..................... 0.78 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.67
4-year (upper):
Baseline................... 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17
Policy..................... 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.15
Graduate:
Baseline................... 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37
Policy..................... 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Enrollment by Loan Risk Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prop. 2-year & below:
Baseline................... 27.52 28.58 29.65 30.77 31.91 33.05 34.22 35.41 36.63
Policy..................... 27.52 25.12 24.33 24.40 24.69 25.03 25.40 25.77 26.14
Public/NP 2-year & below:
Baseline................... 20.36 19.88 19.44 18.94 18.44 17.96 17.47 16.97 16.44
Policy..................... 20.36 22.18 23.06 23.36 23.45 23.46 23.44 23.40 23.35
4-year (lower):
Baseline................... 29.76 29.33 28.90 28.48 28.05 27.62 27.18 26.76 26.33
Policy..................... 29.76 29.99 29.98 29.79 29.54 29.28 29.01 28.74 28.47
4-year (upper):
Baseline................... 7.79 7.62 7.44 7.27 7.09 6.91 6.73 6.55 6.37
Policy..................... 7.79 7.73 7.55 7.36 7.18 7.01 6.86 6.71 6.56
Graduate:
Baseline................... 14.58 14.59 14.57 14.55 14.51 14.46 14.39 14.32 14.23
Policy..................... 14.58 14.99 15.08 15.09 15.14 15.21 15.30 15.39 15.48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70166]]
As reported in Tables 7.5 and 7.6, we estimate that the regulations
would result in a reduction of title IV, HEA aid between fiscal years
2025 and 2033.
Table 7.5--Estimated Annual Change in Title IV, HEA Aid Volume Relative to Baseline
[millions, $2019]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-GE Programs:
Pell.................................. 25 57 89 101 108 116 118 116 110 840
Subs.................................. 9 16 11 8 8 10 10 9 9 92
Unsub................................. 18 10 (45) (90) (120) (143) (164) (185) (209) (928)
Grad PLUS............................. 4 (25) (91) (147) (183) (205) (221) (235) (248) (1,353)
Par. PLUS............................. 7 30 52 61 65 68 67 66 64 480
GE Programs:
Pell.................................. (199) (511) (808) (936) (983) (1,050) (1,138) (1,247) (1,376) (8,248)
Subs.................................. (149) (380) (472) (486) (501) (529) (565) (606) (653) (4,340)
Unsub................................. (226) (576) (707) (717) (732) (765) (809) (861) (921) (6,313)
Grad PLUS............................. (20) (51) (63) (62) (60) (58) (56) (55) (55) (479)
Par. PLUS............................. (18) (48) (59) (59) (64) (74) (86) (101) (117) (625)
Total:
Pell.................................. (174) (455) (719) (835) (875) (934) (1,020) (1,131) (1,266) (7,409)
Subs.................................. (139) (364) (461) (477) (493) (519) (555) (597) (644) (4,248)
Unsub................................. (208) (566) (752) (807) (852) (908) (973) (1,046) (1,130) (7,241)
Grad PLUS............................. (16) (77) (154) (209) (242) (263) (278) (290) (303) (1,832)
Par. PLUS............................. (11) (18) (7) 2 1 (6) (19) (35) (53) (145)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7.6--Estimated Annual Percent Change in Title IV, HEA Aid Volume by Fiscal Year
(%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-GE Programs:
Pell.................................. 0.25 0.32 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.40 0.37 0.36 0.33 0.35
Subs.................................. 0.09 0.15 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10
Unsub................................. 0.08 0.04 -0.20 -0.40 -0.53 -0.63 -0.72 -0.81 -0.90 -0.46
Grad PLUS............................. 0.07 -0.47 -1.62 -2.48 -2.95 -3.24 -3.42 -3.56 -3.68 -2.48
Par. PLUS............................. 0.08 0.33 0.56 0.66 0.70 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.58
GE Programs:
Pell.................................. -9.46 -14.53 -14.66 -14.58 -15.06 -15.91 -16.97 -18.18 -19.54 -15.44
Subs.................................. -5.36 -13.71 -17.00 -17.43 -17.91 -18.81 -19.97 -21.30 -22.76 -17.18
Unsub................................. -4.49 -11.47 -14.12 -14.32 -14.56 -15.16 -15.98 -16.95 -18.04 -13.91
Grad PLUS............................. -2.83 -7.12 -8.59 -8.27 -7.84 -7.57 -7.40 -7.30 -7.25 -7.16
Par. PLUS............................. -2.54 -6.62 -7.90 -7.67 -8.16 -9.26 -10.70 -12.35 -14.14 -8.97
Total:
Pell.................................. -1.46 -2.32 -2.36 -2.37 -2.48 -2.68 -2.95 -3.24 -3.61 -2.59
Subs.................................. -1.03 -2.71 -3.46 -3.61 -3.75 -3.97 -4.28 -4.63 -5.03 -3.59
Unsub................................. -0.77 -2.08 -2.76 -2.95 -3.09 -3.27 -3.48 -3.72 -3.99 -2.91
Grad PLUS............................. -0.28 -1.25 -2.42 -3.12 -3.49 -3.70 -3.84 -3.94 -4.04 -2.99
Par. PLUS............................. -0.11 -0.18 -0.07 0.02 0.01 -0.06 -0.19 -0.35 -0.53 -0.16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7.7 reports the annual net budget impact after accounting for
estimated loan repayment. We estimate a net Federal budget impact of $-
13.8 billion, consisting of $-7.4 billion in reduced Pell grants and $-
6.4 billion for loan cohorts 2024 to 2033.
Table 7.7--Estimated Annual Net Budget Impact
[Outlays in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pell...................................... -174 -455 -719 -835 -875 -934 -1,020 -1,131 -1,266 -7,409
Subs...................................... -39 -114 -153 -158 -158 -160 -166 -172 -181 -1,302
Unsub..................................... -48 -149 -218 -237 -246 -255 -268 -281 -300 -2,003
PLUS (Par & Grad)......................... -2 -22 -53 -79 -90 -98 -102 -104 -106 -656
Consol.................................... -12 -36 -80 -145 -229 -323 -431 -537 -641 -2,435
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. -275 -776 -1,223 -1,454 -1,598 -1,770 -1,987 -2,225 -2,494 -13,805
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's calculations of the net budget impacts represent
our best estimate of the effect of the regulations on the Federal
student aid programs. As noted in the NPRM published June, realized
budget impacts will be heavily influenced by actual program
performance, student response to program performance, student borrowing
and repayment behavior, and changes in enrollment because of the
regulations. For example, if students, including prospective students,
react more strongly to the warnings, acknowledgment requirement, or
potential ineligibility of programs than anticipated and, if many of
these students leave postsecondary education, the impact on Pell grants
and loans could increase. Similarly, if institutions react to the
regulations by improving performance, the assumed enrollment and aid
amounts could be overstated, though this would be very beneficial to
[[Page 70167]]
students. Finally, if students' repayment behavior is different than
that assumed in the model, the realized budget impact could be larger
or smaller than our estimate.
8. Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A-4, we have prepared an accounting
statement showing the classification of the benefits, costs, and
transfers associated with the provisions of these regulations.
Primary Estimates
We estimate that by shifting enrollment to higher financial-value
programs, the regulations would increase student's earnings, resulting
in net after-tax gains to students and benefits for taxpayers in the
form of additional tax revenue. Table 8.1 reports the estimated
aggregate earnings gain for each cohort of completers, separately for
GE and non-GE programs, and the cumulative (not discounted) earnings
gain over the budget window. The regulation is estimated to generate
$32.3 billion of additional earnings gains over the budget window, both
from GE and non-GE programs. Using the approach described in
``Methodology for Costs, Benefits, and Transfers,'' we expect $26.3
billion to benefit students and $6.0 billion to benefit Federal and
State governments and taxpayers.\331\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\331\ The earnings gains estimate in the NPRM did not include
earnings gains over the full budget window, thereby underestimating
that gain. For this final RIA, we recalculated earnings gains to
account for this more comprehensive budget impact, which resulted in
an increase in estimated earnings gains relative to the NPRM.
Table 8.1--Annual and Cumulative Earnings Gain and Distribution Between Students and Government
[Millions, $2019]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-year Earnings Gains of Each Cohort of Completers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-GE.................................... 0 139 411 542 598 596 566 497 421 3,770
GE........................................ 0 232 470 570 590 561 510 447 376 3,755
Total................................. 0 370 881 1,112 1,189 1,157 1,075 944 797 7,525
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Earnings Gain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative gain........................... 0 370 1,251 2,363 3,551 4,708 5,783 6,728 7,525 32,280
Student share............................. 0 302 1,019 1,923 2,891 3,832 4,708 5,476 6,125 26,276
Gov't share............................... 0 69 233 440 661 876 1,076 1,251 1,400 6,004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule could also alter aggregate instructional spending,
by shifting enrollment to higher-cost institutions (an increase in
spending) or by reducing aggregate enrollment (a decrease in spending).
Table 8.2 reports estimated annual and cumulative changes in
instructional spending, overall and separately for GE and non-GE
programs. The net effect is an increase in aggregate cumulative
instructional spending of $2.7 billion (not discounted), though this
masks differences between non-GE programs (net increase in spending)
and GE programs (net decrease in spending). Spending is reduced in the
first year of the policy due to the decrease in enrollment, but then
increases as more students transfer to more costly programs.
Table 8.2--Instructional Spending Change
[Millions, $2019]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-GE.................................... 0 381 685 836 904 909 883 800 719 6,118
GE........................................ 0 -536 -456 -336 -301 -333 -399 -481 -576 -3,417
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 0 -155 230 500 603 576 485 319 143 2,701
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule would create transfers between students, the Federal
Government, and among postsecondary institutions by shifting enrollment
between programs, removing title IV, HEA eligibility for GE programs
that fail a GE metric multiple times, and causing some students to
choose non-enrollment instead of a low value program. Table 8.3 reports
the number of enrolments that transfer programs, remain enrolled at
ineligible programs, or decline to enroll in postsecondary education
altogether. We estimate that almost 1.5 million enrollments would
transfer from low financial value programs to better programs over the
decade. A more modest number would remain enrolled at programs that are
no longer eligible for title IV, HEA aid.
Table 8.3--Estimated Enrollment of Transfers and Ineligible Under the Regulation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-GE:
Transfer.............................. 0 33,481 96,886 81,495 72,531 67,660 64,896 63,184 62,009 542,142
Inelig................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GE:
Transfer.............................. 0 204,541 195,213 132,844 96,996 79,268 70,668 66,360 64,057 909,948
Inelig................................ 0 0 53,244 43,729 30,098 22,035 17,816 15,631 14,466 197,019
Total:
Transfer.............................. 0 238,022 292,099 214,339 169,527 146,928 135,565 129,544 126,066 1,452,089
Inelig................................ 0 0 53,244 43,729 30,098 22,035 17,816 15,631 14,466 197,019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70168]]
The resulting reductions in expenditures on title IV, HEA program
funds from enrollment declines and continued enrollment at non-eligible
institutions are classified as transfers from affected student loan
borrowers and Pell grant recipients to the Federal Government. The
combined reduction in title IV, HEA expenditures was presented in the
Net Budget Impacts section above. Transfers also include title IV, HEA
program funds that follow students as they shift from low-performing
programs to higher-performing programs, which is presented in Table
8.4.
Table 8.4--Estimated Title IV, HEA Aid Transferred From Failing to Passing Programs Under the Regulation
[$2019, millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-GE.................................... 0 145 458 388 351 330 318 311 307 2,608
GE........................................ 0 1,109 1,057 720 530 434 387 362 349 4,948
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 0 1,255 1,515 1,108 880 764 705 674 656 7,557
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers are neither costs nor benefits, but rather the
reallocation of resources from one party to another. Table 8.5 provides
our best estimate of the changes in annual monetized benefits, costs,
and transfers as a result of these regulations. Our baseline estimate
with a discount rate of 3 percent is that the regulation would generate
$3.0 billion of annualized benefits against $0.4 billion of annualized
costs and $1.3 billion of transfers to the Federal Government and $0.7
billion transfers from failing programs to passing programs. A discount
rate of 7 percent results in $2.7 billion of benefits against $0.4
billion of annualized costs and $1.2 billion of transfers to the
Federal Government and $0.7 billion transfers from failing programs to
passing programs. Note that the accounting statement does not include
benefits that are unquantified, such as benefits for students
associated with lower default and better credit and benefits for
institutions from improved information about their value.
Table 8.5--Accounting Statement for Primary Scenario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Impact (millions, $2023)
-------------------------------------------
Discount rate = 3% Discount rate = 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earnings gain (net of taxes) 2,444 2,213
for students...............
Additional Federal and State 559 506
tax revenue and reductions
in transfer program
expenditure (not included
in budget impact)..........
-------------------------------------------
For students, lower default,
better credit leading to
family and business
formation, more retirement
savings. For institutions,
increased enrollment and
revenue associated with new
enrollments from improved
information about value.... Not quantified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced instructional 258 241
spending...................
Additional reporting by 90 93
institutions...............
Warning/acknowledgment by 12 12
institutions and students..
Implementation of reporting, 4 4
website, acknowledgment by
ED.........................
-------------------------------------------
Time/moving cost for
transfers; Investments to
improve program quality.... Not quantified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer of Federal Pell 709 667
dollars to Federal
Government from enrollment
reduction..................
Transfer of Federal loan 607 564
dollars to Federal
Government from reduced
borrowing and greater
repayment..................
Transfer of aid dollars from 747 732
non-passing programs to
passing programs...........
-------------------------------------------
Transfer of State aid
dollars from failing
programs for dropouts...... Not quantified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sensitivity Analysis
We conducted the simulations of the rule while varying several key
assumptions. Specifically, we provide estimates of the change in title
IV, HEA volumes using varied assumptions about student transitions,
student dropout, program performance, and the earnings gains associated
with enrollment shifts. We believe these to be the main sources of
uncertainty in our model.
Varying Levels of Student Transition
Our primary analysis assumes rates of transfer and dropout for GE
programs based on the research literature, but these quantities are
uncertain. The alternative models adjust transfer and dropout rates for
all transfer groups to the rates for high alternatives and few
alternatives, respectively, as shown in Table 6.5. As reported in
Tables 8.6 and 8.7, we estimate that the regulations
[[Page 70169]]
would result in a reduction of title IV, HEA aid between fiscal years
2025 and 2033, regardless of if all students have the highest or lowest
amount of transfer alternatives.
Table 8.6--High Transfer Sensitivity Analysis--Estimated Annual Change in Title IV, HEA Aid Volume Relative to Baseline
[Millions, $2019]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-GE Programs:
Pell.................................. 29 63 94 101 105 108 107 104 97 808
Subs.................................. 10 18 12 7 5 5 4 3 1 66
Unsub................................. 20 3 (67) (119) (152) (176) (198) (220) (244) (1,153)
Grad PLUS............................. 4 (37) (121) (184) (223) (247) (263) (277) (290) (1,639)
Par. PLUS............................. 8 32 53 61 65 68 68 68 67 491
GE Programs:
Pell.................................. (195) (484) (754) (867) (920) (999) (1,097) (1,213) (1,348) (7,877)
Subs.................................. (149) (368) (446) (460) (481) (514) (553) (597) (645) (4,214)
Unsub................................. (226) (558) (669) (679) (701) (741) (790) (845) (906) (6,115)
Grad PLUS............................. (21) (52) (61) (59) (57) (55) (54) (53) (52) (464)
Par. PLUS............................. (15) (40) (48) (49) (56) (68) (82) (97) (114) (568)
Total
Pell.................................. (166) (419) (659) (766) (817) (891) (990) (1,110) (1,251) (7,069)
Subs.................................. (138) (350) (434) (453) (474) (506) (545) (589) (638) (4,127)
Unsub................................. (206) (555) (736) (798) (854) (917) (988) (1,064) (1,150) (7,268)
Grad PLUS............................. (17) (89) (182) (244) (281) (302) (317) (329) (342) (2,103)
Par. PLUS............................. (7) (8) 5 12 9 0 (13) (29) (47) (77)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8.7--Low Transfer Sensitivity Analysis--Estimated Annual Change in Title IV, HEA Aid Volume Relative to Baseline
[Millions, $2019]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-GE Programs:
Pell.................................. 16 43 73 95 113 129 137 142 142 890
Subs.................................. 6 12 12 12 14 17 17 17 16 123
Unsub................................. 11 28 22 6 (6) (16) (29) (44) (62) (91)
Grad PLUS............................. 2 7 (3) (24) (39) (49) (57) (64) (72) (300)
Par. PLUS............................. 5 26 49 61 67 70 70 68 66 482
GE Programs:
Pell.................................. (187) (550) (921) (1,126) (1,184) (1,236) (1,302) (1,395) (1,513) (9,414)
Subs.................................. (136) (399) (546) (570) (578) (595) (622) (657) (699) (4,803)
Unsub................................. (208) (607) (825) (851) (856) (874) (904) (948) (1,001) (7,074)
Grad PLUS............................. (19) (54) (74) (75) (72) (69) (67) (66) (65) (561)
Par. PLUS............................. (20) (62) (87) (89) (91) (98) (107) (120) (134) (808)
Total:
Pell.................................. (170) (508) (848) (1,030) (1,070) (1,106) (1,164) (1,253) (1,371) (8,520)
Subs.................................. (131) (386) (534) (557) (564) (579) (605) (640) (683) (4,680)
Unsub................................. (197) (579) (803) (846) (862) (890) (934) (992) (1,063) (7,165)
Grad PLUS............................. (16) (47) (77) (99) (111) (118) (124) (130) (137) (860)
Par. PLUS............................. (15) (37) (37) (28) (24) (28) (37) (52) (69) (326)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Program Improvement
Our primary analysis assumes that both non-GE and GE programs
improve performance after failing either the D/E or EP metric and that
GE programs that pass both metrics still improve performance in
response to the rule. We incorporate this by increasing the fail to
pass program transition rate by 5 percentage points for each type of
program failure after 2026 for GE and non-GE programs, by reducing the
rate of repeated failure by 5 percentage points for GE and non-GE
programs, and by increasing the rate of a repeated passing result by
two and a half percentage points for GE programs. The alternative model
will assume no program improvement in response to failing metrics.
As reported in Table 8.8, we estimate that the regulations would
result in a reduction of title IV, HEA aid between fiscal years 2025
and 2033, regardless of if programs show improvement.
Table 8.8--No Program Improvement Sensitivity Analysis--Estimated Annual Change in Title IV, HEA Aid Volume Relative to Baseline
[Millions, $2019]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-GE Programs:
Pell.................................. 25 57 94 118 142 165 183 197 207 1,188
Subs.................................. 9 16 14 17 21 27 31 34 37 206
Unsub................................. 18 10 (31) (53) (67) (76) (85) (96) (109) (489)
Grad PLUS............................. 4 (25) (79) (114) (138) (153) (164) (173) (182) (1,026)
Par. PLUS............................. 7 30 54 68 78 85 89 92 93 597
GE Programs:
[[Page 70170]]
Pell.................................. (199) (511) (815) (962) (1,039) (1,137) (1,252) (1,387) (1,541) (8,843)
Subs.................................. (149) (380) (477) (502) (532) (571) (617) (668) (723) (4,618)
Unsub................................. (226) (576) (716) (750) (792) (847) (910) (980) (1,056) (6,853)
Grad PLUS............................. (20) (51) (64) (68) (70) (72) (74) (76) (79) (575)
Par. PLUS............................. (18) (48) (62) (69) (79) (94) (110) (128) (147) (755)
Total:
Pell.................................. (174) (455) (721) (846) (898) (973) (1,069) (1,190) (1,334) (7,660)
Subs.................................. (139) (364) (462) (485) (510) (544) (586) (634) (686) (4,411)
Unsub................................. (208) (566) (747) (803) (858) (923) (996) (1,076) (1,165) (7,342)
Grad PLUS............................. (16) (77) (143) (182) (209) (226) (238) (250) (261) (1,602)
Par. PLUS............................. (11) (18) (8) (0) (1) (8) (21) (36) (54) (157)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Earnings Gain
Our primary analysis assumes that the earnings change associated
with shifts in enrollment is equal to the difference in average
earnings between groups defined by loan risk group, program performance
category, and whether the program is a GE program or not, multiplied by
an adjustment factor equal to 0.75. This adjustment factor was derived
from regression models where we compared the earnings difference
between passing and failing programs conditional on credential level
with and without a rich set of student characteristics controls. The
estimated earnings gain associated with the rule scales directly with
the value of this adjustment factor. A value of 1.0 (all of the
difference in average earnings between groups would manifest as
earnings gain) would increase the total annualized earnings gain for
students from $2.4 billion up to $3.3 billion (3 percent discount
rate).
A value of 0.40 reduces it to $1.3 billion; a value of 0.20 reduces
it to $0.7 billion. The net fiscal externality increases or decreases
proportionately. Each of these two scenarios would involve more of the
raw earnings difference between passing and failing programs of the
same credential level being explained by factors we are not able to
measure (such as student academic preparation) than those that we are
able to measure (such as race, gender, parent education, family income,
and Pell receipt).\332\ Even at these low values for the adjustment
factor, the estimated earnings benefits of the rule by themselves
outweigh the estimated costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\332\ In unpublished analysis of approximately 600 programs
(defined by 2-digit CIP by institution) at four-year public colleges
in Texas as part of their published work, Andrews & Stange (2019)
find that a 1 percent increase in log program earnings (unadjusted)
is associated with a .72 percent increase in log program earnings
after controlling for student race/ethnicity, limited English
proficiency, economic disadvantage, and achievement test scores.
Additionally controlling for students' college application and
admissions behavior reduces this to 0.62. Using the correlation of
institution-level average earnings and value-added in Figure 2.1 of
Hoxby (2018), we estimate that an earnings gain of $10,000 is
associated with a value added gain of roughly $6,000 over the entire
sample, of roughly $4,000 for scores below 1200, and of roughly
$2,000 for scores below 1000. These relationships imply parameter
values of 0.72, 0.62, 0.60, 0.40, and 0.20, respectively. Again,
institution-level correlations may not be directly comparable to
program-level data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Distributional Consequences
The final regulations advance distributional equity aims because
the benefits of the regulation--better information, increased earnings,
and more manageable debt repayment--would disproportionately be
realized by students who otherwise would have low earnings. Students
without access to good information about program performance tend to be
more disadvantaged; improved transparency about program performance
would be particularly valuable to these students. The final regulations
improve program quality in the undergraduate certificate sector in
particular, which, as documented above, disproportionately enrolls low-
income students. Students already attending high-quality colleges, who
tend to be more advantaged, would be relatively unaffected by the
regulation. The major costs of the program involve additional paperwork
and instructional spending, which are not incurred by students
directly.
10. Alternatives Considered
As part of the development of these regulations, the Department
engaged in a negotiated rulemaking process in which we received
comments and proposals from non-Federal negotiators representing
numerous impacted constituencies. These included higher education
institutions, consumer advocates, students, financial aid
administrators, accrediting agencies, and States. Non-Federal
negotiators submitted a variety of proposals relating to the issues
under discussion. Information about these proposals is available on our
negotiated rulemaking website at www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2021/.
In response to comments received and further internal consideration
of these final regulations, the Department reviewed and considered
various changes to the proposed regulations detailed in the NPRM. We
described the changes made in response to public comments in the
Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this preamble. We summarize
below the major proposals that we considered but ultimately chose not
to implement in these regulations. In developing these final
regulations, we contemplated the budgetary impact, administrative
burden, and anticipated effectiveness of the options we considered.
D/E Rate Only
The Department considered using only the D/E rates metric,
consistent with the 2014 Prior Rule. Tables 10.1 and 10.2 show the
share of GE and non-GE programs and enrollment that would fail under
only the D/E metric compared to our preferred rule that considers both
D/E and EP metrics. A greater number of programs do not meet standards
when considering both D/E and EP instead of D/E only, especially among
certificate programs.
As discussed earlier at length, the D/E and EP measure distinct
outcomes of gainful employment, and the EP adds an important protection
for students and taxpayers. Even small amounts of debt can be
unmanageable borrowers with low earnings, as shown in the RIA and in
research.\333\ With the inclusion of the
[[Page 70171]]
EP, the Department affirms that borrowers that postsecondary GE
programs should help students reach a minimal level of labor market
earnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\333\ See Brown, Meta et al. (2015). Looking at Student Loan
Defaults Through a Larger Window. Liberty Street Economics, Fed.
Reserve Bank of N.Y. (https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2015/02/looking_at_student_loan_defaults_through_a_larger_window/).
Table 10.1--Percent of GE Students and Programs That Fail Under D/E Only vs. D/E or EP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs Students
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fail D/E only Fail D/E or EP Fail D/E only Fail D/E or EP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
UG Certificates............................. 0.0 1.0 0.4 4.4
Post-BA Certs............................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Grad Certs.................................. 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 0.0 0.9 0.4 4.1
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates............................. 0.4 5.6 3.9 42.9
Post-BA Certs............................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Grad Certs.................................. 0.6 0.7 2.7 3.5
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 0.4 2.6 3.3 28.5
Proprietary:
UG Certificates............................. 5.0 34.4 8.7 52.8
Associate................................... 10.7 15.0 33.7 38.5
Bachelor's.................................. 10.7 10.9 24.3 24.4
Post-BA Certs............................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Master's.................................... 9.7 9.7 16.6 16.6
Doctoral.................................... 8.3 8.3 10.6 10.6
Professional................................ 13.8 13.8 50.7 50.7
Grad Certs.................................. 4.8 7.3 37.9 38.6
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 7.7 23.0 20.2 34.1
Foreign Private:
UG Certificates............................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Post-BA Certs............................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Grad Certs.................................. 1.5 1.5 84.2 84.2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 0.9 0.9 79.6 79.6
Foreign For-Profit:
Master's.................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Doctoral.................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Professional................................ 28.6 28.6 20.3 20.3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 11.8 11.8 17.2 17.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 10.2--Percent of Non-GE Programs and Enrollment at GE Programs That Fail Under D/E Only vs. D/E or EP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs Students
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fail D/E only Fail D/E or EP Fail D/E only Fail D/E or EP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
Associate................................... 0.2 1.7 0.5 7.8
Bachelor's.................................. 0.9 1.4 1.3 1.8
Master's.................................... 0.3 0.3 1.2 1.2
Doctoral.................................... 0.2 0.2 2.6 2.6
Professional................................ 3.3 3.3 7.5 7.5
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 0.5 1.2 1.0 4.5
Private, Nonprofit:
Associate................................... 2.6 3.3 22.5 24.7
Bachelor's.................................. 0.6 0.9 2.7 4.3
Master's.................................... 1.7 1.9 4.1 4.7
Doctoral.................................... 1.9 1.9 15.5 15.5
Professional................................ 16.7 17.5 34.1 34.7
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 1.2 1.5 5.8 7.1
Foreign Private:
Associate................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bachelor's.................................. 0.1 0.1 1.2 1.2
Master's.................................... 0.1 0.1 1.8 1.9
Doctoral.................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Professional................................ 3.4 3.4 20.7 20.7
---------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70172]]
Total................................... 0.2 0.2 2.9 2.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Earnings Thresholds
The Department examined the consequences of two different ways of
computing the earnings threshold. For the first, we computed the
earnings threshold as the annual earnings among all respondents aged
25-34 in the ACS who have a high school diploma or GED, but no
postsecondary education. The second is the median annual earnings among
respondents aged 25-34 in the ACS who have a high school diploma or
GED, but no postsecondary education, and who worked a full year prior
to being surveyed. These measures, which are included in the 2022 PPD,
straddle our preferred threshold, which includes all respondents in the
labor force, but excludes those that are not in the labor force.
Tables 10.3 and 10.4 reports the share of programs and enrollment
that would pass GE metrics under three different earnings threshold
methods, with our approach in the middle column. The share of
enrollment in undergraduate proprietary certificate programs that would
fail ranges from about 30 percent under the lowest threshold up to 61
percent under the highest threshold. The failure rate for public
undergraduate certificate programs is much lower than proprietary
programs under all three scenarios, ranging from about 2 percent for
the lowest threshold to 9 percent under the highest. The earnings
threshold chosen would have a much smaller impact on failure rates for
degree programs, which range from about 34 percent to 42 percent of
enrollment for associate programs and essentially no impact for
bachelor's degree or higher programs.
Table 10.3--Share of Enrollment in GE Programs That Fail, by Where Earnings Threshold Is Set
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Failing Total
---------------------------------------------------------------
DTE + medium DTE + higher Number of
DTE + lower EP EP EP enrollees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
UG Certificates............................. 1.7 4.4 9.1 869,600
Post-BA Certs............................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 12,600
Grad Certs.................................. 0.4 0.4 0.4 41,900
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates............................. 25.8 40.5 43.0 77,900
Post-BA Certs............................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 7,900
Grad Certs.................................. 2.7 2.7 4.7 35,700
Proprietary:
UG Certificates............................. 30.0 50.8 61.2 549,900
Associate................................... 33.9 37.1 42.4 326,800
Bachelor's.................................. 24.3 24.3 24.7 675,800
Post-BA Certs............................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 800
Master's.................................... 16.6 16.6 16.6 240,000
Doctoral.................................... 10.6 10.6 10.6 54,000
Professional................................ 50.7 50.7 50.7 12,100
Grad Certs.................................. 38.3 38.6 38.6 10,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Enrollment counts rounded to the nearest hundred.
Table 10.4--Share of GE Programs That Fail, by Where Earnings Threshold Is Set
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Failing Total
---------------------------------------------------------------
DTE + medium DTE + higher Number of
DTE + lower EP EP EP Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
UG Certificates............................. 0.6 1.0 1.6 19,00
Post-BA Certs............................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 900
Grad Certs.................................. 0.1 0.1 0.1 1,900
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates............................. 2.7 4.7 5.5 1,400
Post-BA Certs............................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 600
Grad Certs.................................. 0.6 0.6 0.6 1,400
Proprietary:
UG Certificates............................. 20.8 32.0 38.0 3,200
Associate................................... 10.8 13.8 17.6 1,700
Bachelor's.................................. 10.5 10.6 11.2 1,000
Post-BA Certs............................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 50
Master's.................................... 9.6 9.6 9.6 500
[[Page 70173]]
Doctoral.................................... 8.2 8.2 8.2 100
Professional................................ 12.5 12.5 12.5 30
Grad Certs.................................. 5.5 7.0 7.0 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Program counts rounded to the nearest 100, except where 50 or fewer.
Tables 10.5 and 10.6 illustrate this for non-GE programs. As with
GE programs, the earnings threshold chosen would have a relatively
small impact on the share of Bachelors' or higher programs that fail
but would impact failure rates for associate degree programs at public
institutions, where the share of enrollment in failing programs ranges
from about 2 percent at the lowest threshold to 23 percent at the
highest. Our measure would result in 8 percent of enrollment in public
failing programs.
Table 10.5--Share of Enrollment in Non-GE Programs That Fail, by Where Earnings Threshold Is Set
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Failing
------------------------------------------------ Total Number
DTE + medium DTE + higher of Enrollees
DTE + lower EP EP EP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
Associate................................... 1.6 7.8 23.2 5,496,800
Bachelor's.................................. 1.4 1.8 4.2 5,800,700
Master's.................................... 1.2 1.2 1.3 760,500
Doctoral.................................... 2.6 2.6 2.6 145,200
Professional................................ 7.5 7.5 7.5 127,500
Private, Nonprofit:
Associate................................... 22.5 23.2 25.3 266,900
Bachelor's.................................. 3.5 3.9 5.2 2,651,300
Master's.................................... 4.2 4.2 4.4 796,100
Doctoral.................................... 15.5 15.5 15.5 142,900
Professional................................ 34.2 34.2 34.2 130,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:- Enrollment counts rounded to the nearest hundred.
Table 10.6--Share of Non-GE Programs That Fail, by Where Earnings Threshold Is Set
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Failing
------------------------------------------------ Total number
DTE + medium DTE + higher of programs
DTE + lower EP EP EP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
Associate................................... 0.4 1.7 3.6 27,300
Bachelor's.................................. 1.0 1.3 2.9 24,300
Master's.................................... 0.3 0.3 0.3 14,600
Doctoral.................................... 0.2 0.2 0.2 5,700
Professional................................ 3.2 3.2 3.2 600
Private, Nonprofit:
Associate................................... 2.6 2.8 3.5 2,300
Bachelor's.................................. 0.7 0.9 1.3 29,800
Master's.................................... 1.7 1.8 1.8 10,400
Doctoral.................................... 1.9 1.9 1.9 2,900
Professional................................ 16.8 16.8 16.8 500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Program counts rounded to the nearest 100.
No Reporting and Acknowledgment for Non-GE Programs
The Department considered proposing to apply the reporting and
acknowledgment requirements only to GE programs, and calculating D/E
rates and the earnings premium measure only for these programs, similar
to the 2014 Prior Rule. This approach, however, would fail to protect
students, families, and taxpayers from investing in non-GE programs
that deliver low value and poor debt and earnings outcomes. As higher
education costs and student debt levels increase, students, families,
institutions, and the public have a commensurately growing interest in
ensuring their higher education investments are justified through
positive career, debt, and earnings outcomes for graduates, regardless
of the sector in which the institution operates or the credential level
of the program. Furthermore, comprehensive performance information
about all programs is necessary to guide students that would otherwise
choose failing GE programs to better options.
[[Page 70174]]
Small Program Rates
While we believe the D/E rates and earnings premium measure are
reasonable and useful metrics for assessing debt and earnings outcomes,
we acknowledge that the minimum n-size of 30 completers would exempt
small programs from these Financial Value Transparency measures. In our
initial proposals during negotiated rulemaking, the Department
considered calculating small program rates in such instances. These
small program rates would have been calculated by combining all of an
institution's small programs to produce the institution's small program
D/E rates and earnings premium measure, which would be used for
informational purposes only. In the case of GE programs, these small
program rates would not have resulted in program eligibility
consequences. Several negotiators questioned the usefulness of the
small program rates because they would not provide information specific
to any particular program, and because an institution's different small
programs in various disciplines could lead to vastly different debt and
earnings outcomes. In addition, several negotiators expressed concerns
about the use of small program rates as a supplementary performance
measure under proposed Sec. 668.13(e). Upon consideration of these
points, and in the interest of simplifying the final rule, the
Department has opted to omit the small program rates.
Alternative Components of the D/E Rates Measure
The Department considered alternative ways of computing the D/E
rates measure, including:
Lower completer thresholds n-size
Different ways of computing interest rates
Different amortization periods
We concluded that the parameters used in the D/E rates and earnings
premium calculations were most consistent with best practices
identified in prior analysis and research.
Discretionary Earnings Rate
The Department considered simplifying the D/E rates metric by only
including a discretionary earnings rate. We believe that using only the
discretionary earnings rate would be insufficient because there may be
some instances in which a borrower's annual earnings would be
sufficient to pass an 8 percent annual debt-to-earnings threshold, even
if that borrower's discretionary earnings are insufficient to pass a 20
percent discretionary debt-to-earnings threshold. Utilizing both annual
and discretionary D/E rates would provide a more complete picture of a
program's true debt and earnings outcomes and would be more generous to
institutions because a program that passes either the annual earnings
rate or the discretionary earnings rate would pass the D/E rates
metric.
Pre- and Post- Earnings Comparison
A standard practice for evaluating the effectiveness of
postsecondary programs is to compare the earnings of students after
program completion to earnings before program enrollment, to control
for any student-specific factors that determine labor market success
that should not be attributed to program performance. While the
Department introduced limited analysis of pre-program earnings from
students' FAFSA data into the evidence above, it is not feasible to
perform such comparisons on a wide and ongoing scale in the regulation.
Pre-program earnings data is only available for students who have labor
market experience prior to postsecondary enrollment, which excludes
many students who proceed directly to postsecondary education from high
school. Furthermore, earnings data from part-time work during high
school is mostly uninformative for earnings potential after
postsecondary education. Although some postsecondary programs enroll
many students with informative pre-program earnings, many postsecondary
programs would lack sufficient numbers of such students to reliably
incorporate pre-program earnings from the FAFSA into the regulation.
11. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This section considers the effects that the final regulations may
have on small entities in the Educational Sector as required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. et seq., Public Law 96-354)
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA). The purpose of the RFA is to establish as a principle of
regulation that agencies should tailor regulatory and informational
requirements to the size of entities, consistent with the objectives of
a particular regulation and applicable statutes. The RFA generally
requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a ``significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.'' As we describe below, the
Department anticipates that this regulatory action will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We therefore present this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
Description of the Reasons for Agency Action
The Secretary is establishing new regulations to address concerns
about the rising cost of postsecondary education and training and
increased student borrowing by establishing a final financial value
transparency framework to encourage eligible postsecondary programs to
produce acceptable debt and earnings outcomes, apprise current and
prospective students of those outcomes, and provide better information
about program price. In these final regulations, the Secretary also
adopts a GE program accountability framework that establishes
eligibility and certification requirements tied to the debt-to-earnings
and median earnings (relative to high school graduates) of program
graduates. The GE program accountability framework will address ongoing
concerns about educational programs that are required by statute to
provide training that prepares students for gainful employment in a
recognized occupation, but instead are leaving students with
unaffordable levels of loan debt in relation to their earnings or
earnings lower than that of a typical high school graduate. These
programs often lead to default or provide no earnings benefit beyond
that provided by a high school education, failing to fulfill their
intended goal of preparing students for gainful employment.
The regulations will provide a needed framework for oversight
around title IV, HEA institutional eligibility for GE programs and
increased transparency for all programs. The regulations will also
clarify how the Department will determine whether a program is of
reasonable length. The effect on small entities will vary by the extent
that they currently participate in such programs or that they choose to
do so going forward. Small entities could be vulnerable to program
closure of poorly performing programs.
Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the
Regulations
These final regulations amend the Student Assistance General
Provisions regulations issued under the HEA in 34 CFR part 668. The
changes to part 668 are authorized by 20 U.S.C. 1001-1003, 1070a,
1070g, 1085, 1087b, 1087d, 1087e, 1088, 1091, 1092, 1094, 1099c, 1099c-
1, 1221e-3, and 3474.
[[Page 70175]]
The regulations are also designed to protect students and taxpayers
from unreasonable risks. Inadequate consumer information could result
in students enrolling in programs that will not help them benefit them
financially. In addition, institutions may use taxpayer funds in ways
that were not what Congress or the Department intended, resulting in
greater risk to the taxpayers of waste, fraud, and abuse and to the
institution of undeserved negative program review or audit findings
that could result in liabilities. These regulations attempt to limit
risks to students and taxpayers resulting by enhancing our oversight of
GE programs and providing additional transparency for all programs.
Description of and, Where Feasible, An Estimate of the Number of Small
Entities to Which the Regulations Will Apply
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines ``small
institution'' using data on revenue, market dominance, tax filing
status, governing body, and population. The majority of entities to
which the Office of Postsecondary Education's (OPE) regulations apply
are postsecondary institutions, however, which do not report such data
to the Department. As a result, for purposes of these final
regulations, the Department continues to define ``small entities'' by
reference to enrollment, to allow meaningful comparison of regulatory
impact across all types of higher education institutions. The
enrollment standard for small less-than-two-year institutions (below
associate degrees) is less than 750 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students
and for small institutions of at least two but less-than-4-years and 4-
year institutions, less than 1,000 FTE students.\334\ As a result of
discussions with the Small Business Administration, this is an update
from the standard used in some prior rules, such as the NPRM associated
with this final rule, ``Financial Value Transparency and Gainful
Employment (GE), Financial Responsibility, Administrative Capability,
Certification Procedures, Ability to Benefit (ATB),'' published in the
Federal Register May 19, 2023,\335\ the final rule published in the
Federal Register on July 10, 2023, for the improving income driven
repayment rule,\336\ and the final rule published in the Federal
Register on October 28, 2022, ``Pell Grants for Prison Education
Programs; Determining the Amount of Federal Education Assistance Funds
Received by Institutions of Higher Education (90/10); Change in
Ownership and Change in Control.'' \337\ Those prior rules applied an
enrollment standard for a small two-year institution of less than 500
full-time-equivalent (FTE) students and for a small 4-year institution,
less than 1,000 FTE students.\338\ The Department consulted with the
Office of Advocacy for the SBA and the Office of Advocacy has approved
the revised alternative standard for this rulemaking. The Department
continues to believe this approach most accurately reflects a common
basis for determining size categories that is linked to the provision
of educational services and that it captures a similar universe of
small entities as the SBA's revenue standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\334\ In regulations prior to 2016, the Department categorized
small businesses based on tax status. Those regulations defined
``nonprofit organizations'' as ``small organizations'' if they were
independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of
operation, or as ``small entities'' if they were institutions
controlled by governmental entities with populations below 50,000.
Those definitions resulted in the categorization of all private
nonprofit organizations as small and no public institutions as
small. Under the previous definition, proprietary institutions were
considered small if they are independently owned and operated and
not dominant in their field of operation with total annual revenue
below $7,000,000. Using FY 2017 IPEDs finance data for proprietary
institutions, 50 percent of 4-year and 90 percent of 2-year or less
proprietary institutions would be considered small. By contrast, an
enrollment-based definition applies the same metric to all types of
institutions, allowing consistent comparison across all types.
\335\ 88 FR 32300 (May 19, 2023).
\336\ 88 FR 43820 (July 10, 2023).
\337\ 87 FR 65426 (Oct. 28, 2022).
\338\ In those prior rules, at least two but less-than-four-
years institutions were considered in the broader two-year category.
In this iteration, after consulting with the Office of Advocacy for
the SBA, we separate this group into its own category.
Table 11.1--Small Institutions Under Enrollment-Based Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Total Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proprietary..................................................... 2,114 2,331 91
2-year...................................................... 1,875 1,990 94
4-year...................................................... 239 341 70
Private not-for-profit.......................................... 997 1,831 54
2-year...................................................... 199 203 98
4-year...................................................... 798 1,628 49
Public.......................................................... 524 1,924 27
2-year...................................................... 461 1,145 40
4-year...................................................... 63 779 8
-----------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 3,635 6,086 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2020-21 IPEDS data reported to the Department.
Table 11.1 summarizes the number of institutions potentially
affected by these final regulations. As seen in Table 11.2, the average
total revenue at small institutions ranges from $3.0 million for
proprietary institutions to $16.5 million at private institutions.
Table 11.2--Total Revenues at Small Institutions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proprietary....................... 2,959,809 6,257,035,736
2-year........................ 2,257,046 4,231,961,251
4-year........................ 8,473,115 2,025,074,485
Private not-for-profit............ 16,531,376 16,481,781,699
2-year........................ 3,664,051 729,146,103
[[Page 70176]]
4-year........................ 19,740,145 15,752,635,596
Public............................ 11,084,101 5,808,068,785
2-year........................ 8,329,653 3,839,969,872
4-year........................ 31,239,665 1,968,098,913
-------------------------------------
Total..................... 7,853,339 28,546,886,220
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Based on analysis of IPEDS enrollment and revenue data for 2020-
21.
These final regulations require additional reporting and compliance
by title IV, HEA participating postsecondary institutions, including
small entities, and will have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. As described in a previous section,
institutions are exempt from the reporting requirements if none of
their groups of substantially similar programs have more than 30
completers in total during the four most recently completed award
years. Furthermore, GE programs at small institutions could be at risk
of losing the ability to distribute title IV, HEA funds under the GE
program accountability framework if they fail either the debt-to-
earnings (D/E) rate measure or earnings premium (EP) measure. Non-GE
programs at small institutions, excluding undergraduate associate and
bachelor's degree programs, that fail the D/E metric would be required
to have students acknowledge having seen this information prior to
entering into enrollment agreements.
Therefore, many small entities will be impacted by the reporting
and compliance aspects of the rule, which we quantify below. As we
describe in more detail below, the Department estimates that 1.4
percent of non-GE programs at small institutions would fail the D/E
metric, therefore triggering the acknowledgment requirement. The
Department also estimates that 12.8 percent of GE programs at small
institutions would fail either the D/E or EP metric, therefore, being
at risk of losing title IV, HEA eligibility. GE programs represent 46
percent of enrollment at small institutions.
The Department's analysis shows programs at small institutions are
much more likely to have insufficient sample size to compute and report
D/E and EP metrics, though the rate of failing to pass both metrics is
higher for programs at such institutions.\339\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\339\ The minimum number of program completers in a 2-year
cohort that is required for the Department to compute the D/E and EP
performance metrics is referred to as the ``n-size.'' An n-size of
30 is used in the final rule; GE and non-GE programs with fewer than
30 completers across 2 years would not have performance metrics
computed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11.3 and 11.4 show the number and percentage of non-GE
enrollees and non-GE programs at small institutions in each status
relative to the performance standard. The share of non-GE programs that
have sufficient data and fail the D/E metric is higher for programs at
small institutions (1.4 percent) than it is for all institutions (0.8
percent, Table 4.5). Failing the D/E metric for non-GE programs
initiates a requirement that the institution must have title IV, HEA
students acknowledge having seen the information before an enrollment
agreement can be signed. The share of title IV, HEA enrollment in such
programs is also higher at small institutions (8.6 percent for small
institutions vs. 2.1 percent for all institutions, Table 4.4).
Table 11.3--Number of Enrollees in Non-GE Programs at Small Institutions by GE Result, by control, IHE Type, and Credential Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Result in 2019
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No D/E or EP data Pass Fail D/E only Fail both D/E and EP Fail EP only
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N % N % N % N % N %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
Associate............................. 89,200 68.8 28,100 21.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 12,300 9.5
Bachelor's............................ 9,700 72.8 3,000 22.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 689 5.1
Master's.............................. 500 32.2 1,100 67.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Doctoral.............................. 300 36.3 600 63.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Professional.......................... 2,100 45.3 1,400 29.8 1,200 24.9 0 0.0 0 0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 101,900 67.8 34,100 22.7 1,200 0.8 0 0.0 13,000 8.7
Private, Nonprofit:
Associate............................. 28,700 57.0 15,800 31.4 2,500 5.0 2,100 4.1 1,300 2.5
Bachelor's............................ 162,500 74.9 41,400 19.1 4,600 2.1 5,100 2.4 3,400 1.5
Master's.............................. 29,600 61.1 14,600 30.2 3,100 6.3 1,100 2.3 54 0.1
Doctoral.............................. 7,600 45.4 3,600 21.3 5,500 32.9 100 0.4 0 0.0
Professional.......................... 9,000 25.0 7,400 20.5 19,400 53.8 0 0.0 200 0.7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 237,400 64.4 82,700 22.5 35,100 9.5 8,300 2.3 4,900 1.3
Total:
Associate............................. 117,900 65.5 43,900 24.4 2,500 1.4 2,100 1.2 13,600 7.6
Bachelor's............................ 172,300 74.8 44,300 19.2 4,600 2.0 5,100 2.2 4,000 1.8
Master's.............................. 30,100 60.2 15,700 31.4 3,100 6.1 1,100 2.2 100 0.1
Doctoral.............................. 8,000 45.0 4,200 23.5 5,500 31.2 100 0.4 0 0.0
Professional.......................... 11,100 27.3 8,800 21.6 20,500 50.5 0 0.0 200 0.6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 339,300 65.4 116,900 22.5 36,300 7.0 8,300 1.6 18,000 3.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Enrollment counts in this table have been rounded to the nearest 100.
[[Page 70177]]
Table 11.4--Number of Non-GE Programs at Small Institutions by GE Result, by Control, IHE Type, and Credential Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Result in 2019
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No D/E or EP data Pass Fail D/E only Fail both D/E and EP Fail EP only
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N % N % N % N % N %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
Associate............................. 2,180 94.6 96 4.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 28 1.2
Bachelor's............................ 195 95.1 9 4.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.5
Master's.............................. 30 81.1 7 18.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Doctoral.............................. 17 89.5 2 10.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Professional.......................... 9 60.0 4 26.7 2 13.3 0 0.0 0 0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 2,431 94.2 118 4.6 2 0.1 0 0.0 29 1.1
Private, Nonprofit:
Associate............................. 759 90.8 62 7.4 3 0.4 7 0.8 5 0.6
Bachelor's............................ 4,204 94.8 176 4.0 19 0.4 19 0.4 15 0.3
Master's.............................. 924 87.9 95 9.0 24 2.3 6 0.6 2 0.2
Doctoral.............................. 198 88.4 11 4.9 14 6.2 1 0.4 0 0.0
Professional.......................... 86 67.2 12 9.4 27 21.1 0 0.0 3 2.3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 6,171 92.5 356 5.3 87 1.3 33 0.5 25 0.4
Total:
Associate............................. 2,939 93.6 158 5.0 3 0.1 7 0.2 33 1.1
Bachelor's............................ 4,399 94.8 185 4.0 19 0.4 19 0.4 16 0.3
Master's.............................. 954 87.7 102 9.4 24 2.2 6 0.6 2 0.2
Doctoral.............................. 215 88.5 13 5.3 14 5.8 1 0.4 0 0.0
Professional.......................... 95 66.4 16 11.2 29 20.3 0 0.0 3 2.1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 8,602 93.0 474 5.1 89 1.0 33 0.4 54 0.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables 11.5 and 11.6 report similar tabulations for GE programs at
small institutions. GE programs include non-degree certificate programs
at all institutions and all degree programs at proprietary
institutions. GE programs at small institutions are more likely to have
a failing D/E or EP metrics (12.8 percent of all GE programs at small
institutions, compared to 5.4 percent for all institutions in Table
4.9) and have a greater share of enrollment in such programs (40.5
percent vs. 23.8 percent for all institutions in Table 4.8). GE
programs that fail the same performance metric in two out of three
consecutive years will become ineligible to administer Federal title
IV, HEA student aid.
Table 11.5--Number of Enrollees in GE Programs at Small Institutions by GE Result, by Control, IHE Type, and Credential Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Result in 2019
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No D/E or EP data Pass Fail D/E only Fail both D/E and EP Fail EP only
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N % N % N % N % N %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
UG Certificates....................... 53,800 74.7 15,600 21.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 2,700 3.7
Post-BA Certs......................... <50 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Grad Certs............................ 100 77.4 <50 22.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 54,000 74.7 15,600 21.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 2,700 3.7
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates....................... 9,400 41.7 6,600 29.3 0 0.0 400 1.7 6,200 27.3
Post-BA Certs......................... 1,400 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Grad Certs............................ 1,700 83.7 0 0.0 300 16.3 0 0.0 0 0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 12,500 48.1 6,600 25.4 300 1.3 400 1.5 6,200 23.7
Proprietary:
UG Certificates....................... 55,600 21.8 52,900 20.7 100 0.0 29,800 11.7 116,500 45.7
Associate............................. 22,400 38.7 19,700 34.0 7,200 12.5 5,400 9.4 3,100 5.4
Bachelor's............................ 8,800 65.1 3,400 25.1 1,100 8.1 200 1.7 0 0.0
Post-BA Certs......................... <50 55.8 <50 44.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Master's.............................. 3,200 80.4 200 3.9 100 2.0 500 13.6 0 0.0
Doctoral.............................. 1,700 75.4 300 11.3 300 13.3 0 0.0 0 0.0
Professional.......................... 1,000 37.7 100 3.7 1,600 58.6 0 0.0 0 0.0
Grad Certs............................ 300 77.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 73 22.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 93,000 27.7 76,500 22.8 10,400 3.1 36,000 10.7 119,700 35.7
Total:
UG Certificates....................... 118,800 34.0 75,100 21.5 100 0.0 30,200 8.6 125,300 35.8
Associate............................. 22,400 38.7 19,700 34.0 7,200 12.5 5,400 9.4 3,100 5.4
Bachelor's............................ 8,800 65.1 3,400 25.1 1,100 8.1 200 1.7 0 0.0
[[Page 70178]]
Post-BA Certs......................... 1,400 97.4 <50 2.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Master's.............................. 3,200 80.4 200 3.9 100 2.0 500 13.6 0 0.0
Doctoral.............................. 1,700 75.4 300 11.3 300 13.3 0 0.0 0 0.0
Professional.......................... 1,000 37.7 100 3.7 1,600 58.6 0 0.0 0 0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grad Certs............................ 2,100 82.6 <50 1.4 300 13.1 0 0.0 73 2.9
Total............................. 159,500 36.8 98,800 22.8 10,700 2.5 36,400 8.4 128,500 29.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Enrollment counts in this table have been rounded to the nearest 100.
Table 11.6--Number of GE Programs at Small Institutions by GE Result, by Control, IHE Type, and Credential Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Result in 2019
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No D/E or EP data Pass Fail D/E only Fail both D/E and EP Fail EP only
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N % N % N % N % N %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
UG Certificates....................... 3,194 93.4 174 5.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 50 1.5
Post-BA Certs......................... 6 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Grad Certs............................ 13 92.9 1 7.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 3,213 93.5 175 5.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 50 1.5
Private, Nonprofit:
UG Certificates....................... 352 81.5 44 10.2 0 0.0 2 0.5 34 7.9
Post-BA Certs......................... 138 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Grad Certs............................ 103 99.0 0 0.0 1 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 593 88.0 44 6.5 1 0.1 2 0.3 34 5.0
Proprietary:
UG Certificates....................... 1,202 53.0 285 12.6 1 0.0 133 5.9 648 28.6
Associate............................. 626 76.4 112 13.7 38 4.6 23 2.8 20 2.4
Bachelor's............................ 199 88.1 16 7.1 9 4.0 2 0.9 0 0.0
Post-BA Certs......................... 11 91.7 1 8.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Master's.............................. 92 92.9 2 2.0 1 1.0 4 4.0 0 0.0
Doctoral.............................. 33 94.3 1 2.9 1 2.9 0 0.0 0 0.0
Professional.......................... 16 80.0 1 5.0 3 15.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Grad Certs............................ 16 84.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 15.8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 2,195 62.7 418 11.9 53 1.5 162 4.6 671 19.2
Total:
UG Certificates....................... 4,748 77.6 503 8.2 1 0.0 135 2.2 732 12.0
Associate............................. 626 76.4 112 13.7 38 4.6 23 2.8 20 2.4
Bachelor's............................ 199 88.1 16 7.1 9 4.0 2 0.9 0 0.0
Post-BA Certs......................... 155 99.4 1 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Master's.............................. 92 92.9 2 2.0 1 1.0 4 4.0 0 0.0
Doctoral.............................. 33 94.3 1 2.9 1 2.9 0 0.0 0 0.0
Professional.......................... 16 80.0 1 5.0 3 15.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Grad Certs............................ 132 96.4 1 0.7 1 0.7 0 0.0 3 2.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 6,001 78.8 637 8.4 54 0.7 164 2.2 755 9.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Regulations, Including of the Classes of
Small Entities That Will Be Subject to the Requirement and the Type of
Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the Report or Record
As noted in the Paperwork Reduction Act section, burden related to
the final regulations will be assessed in a separate information
collection process and that burden is expected to involve individuals
more than institutions of any size.
The final rule involves four types of reporting and compliance
requirements for institutions, including small entities. First, under
Sec. 668.43, institutions will be required to provide additional
programmatic information to the Department and make this and additional
information assembled by the Department available to current and
prospective students by providing a link to a Department-administered
program information website. Second, under Sec. 668.407, the
Department will require acknowledgments from current and prospective
students if an eligible non-
[[Page 70179]]
GE certificate or graduate program leads to high debt outcomes based on
its D/E rates. Third, under Sec. 668.408, institutions will be
required to provide new annual reporting about programs, current
students, and students that complete or withdraw during each award
year. As described in the Preamble of this final rule, reporting
includes student-level information on enrollment, cost of attendance,
tuition and fees, allowances for books and supplies, allowances for
housing, institutional and other grants, and private loans disbursed.
Finally, under Sec. 668.605, institutions with GE programs that fail
at least one of the metrics will be required to provide warnings to
current and prospective students about the risk of losing title IV, HEA
eligibility and would require that students must acknowledge having
seen the warning before the institution may disburse any title IV, HEA
funds.
Initial estimates of the reporting and compliance burden for these
four items for small entities are provided in Table 11.7, though these
are subject to revision as the content of the required reporting is
refined.\340\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\340\ For Sec. Sec. 668.43, 668.407, and 668.605, we obtained
these estimates by proportioning the total PRA burden on
institutions by the share of institutions that are small entities,
as reported in Table 10.1 (60 percent). The estimate for Sec.
668.605 is reduced from the NPRM estimate that included burden on
individuals in the calculation. The estimate for the final includes
the burden on institutions only.
Table 11.7--Initial and Subsequent Reporting and Compliance Burden for Small Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 668.43........... Amend Sec. 668.43 to establish a website for $6,512,697.
the posting and distribution of key
information pertaining to the institution's
educational programs, and to require
institutions to provide information about how
to access that website to a prospective
student before the student enrolls, registers,
or makes a financial commitment to the
institution.
Sec. 668.407.......... Add a new Sec. 668.407 to require current and $22,459.
prospective students to acknowledge having
seen the information on the program
information website maintained by the
Secretary if an eligible program has failed
the D/E rates measure, to specify the content
and delivery of such acknowledgments, and to
require that students must provide the
acknowledgment before the institution may
enter into an enrollment agreement with the
student.
Sec. 668.408.......... Add a new Sec. 668.408 to establish $32,636,989 initial year; $12,502,598
institutional reporting requirements for subsequent years.
students who enroll in, complete, or withdraw
from a GE program or eligible non-GE program
and to establish the reporting timeframe.
Sec. 668.605.......... Add a new Sec. 668.605 to require warnings to $21,227.
current and prospective students if a GE
program is at risk of losing title IV, HEA
eligibility, to specify the content and
delivery parameters of such notifications, and
to require that students must acknowledge
having seen the warning before the institution
may disburse any title IV, HEA funds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in this preamble, much of the necessary information
for GE programs would already have been reported to the Department
under the 2014 Prior Rule, and as such we believe the added burden of
this reporting relative to existing requirements would be reasonable.
Furthermore, 88 percent of public and 47 percent of private nonprofit
institutions operated at least one GE program and, therefore, have
experience with similar data reporting for the subset of their students
enrolled in certificate programs under the 2014 Prior Rule. Moreover,
many institutions report more detailed information on the components of
cost of attendance and other sources of financial aid in the Federal
National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey (NPSAS) administered by the
National Center for Education Statistics. Finally, the Department
proposes flexibility for institutions to avoid reporting data on
students who completed programs in the past for the first year of
implementation, and instead to use data on more recent completer
cohorts to estimate median debt levels. In part, we intend to ease the
administrative burden of providing this data for programs that were not
covered by the 2014 Prior Rule reporting requirements, especially for
the small number of institutions that may not previously have had any
programs subject to these requirements.
The Department recognizes that institutions may have different
processes for record-keeping and administering financial aid, so the
burden of the GE and financial transparency reporting could vary by
institution. As noted previously, a high percentage of institutions
have already reported data related to the 2014 Prior Rule or similar
variables for other purposes. Many institutions can query systems or
adapt existing reports to meet these requirements. On the other hand,
some institutions may still have data entry processes that are very
manual, and generating the information for their programs could involve
many more hours and resources. Small entities may be less likely to
have invested in systems and processes that allow easy data reporting
because it is not needed for their operations. Institutions may fall in
between these poles and be able to automate the reporting of some
variables but need more effort for others.
We believe that, while the reporting relates to program or student-
level information, the reporting process is likely to be handled at the
institutional level. There would be a cost to establish the query or
report and validate it upfront, but then the marginal increase in costs
to process additional programs or students should not be too
significant. The reporting process will involve personnel with
different skills and responsibility levels. We estimated this using
Bureau of Labor statistics median hourly wage rates for postsecondary
administrators of $48.05.\341\ Table 11.8 presents the Department's
estimates of the hours associated with the reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\341\ Available at www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes119033.htm.
Table 11.8--Estimated Hours for Reporting Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Hours Hours basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review systems and existing 10 Per institution.
reports for adaptability for
this reporting.
Develop reporting query/
result template:
Program-level reporting.. 15 Per institution.
Student-level reporting.. 30 Per institution.
Run test reports:
Program-level reporting.. 0.25 Per institution.
Student-level reporting.. 0.5 Per institution.
[[Page 70180]]
Review/validate test report
results:
Program-level reporting.. 10 Per institution.
Student-level reporting.. 20 Per institution.
Run reports:
Program-level reporting.. 0.25 Per program.
Student-level reporting.. 0.5 Per program.
Review/validate report
results:
Program-level reporting.. 2 Per program.
Student-level reporting.. 5 Per program.
Certify and submit reporting. 10 Per institution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ability to set up reports or processes that can be rerun in
future years, along with the fact that the first reporting cycle
includes information from several prior years, should significantly
decrease the expected burden after the first reporting cycle. We
estimate that the hours associated with reviewing systems, developing
or updating queries, and reviewing and validating the test queries or
reports will be reduced by 35 percent after the first year. The
institution would need to run and validate queries or reports to make
sure no system changes have affected them and confirm there are no
program changes in CIP code, credential level, preparation for
licensure, accreditation, or other items, but we expect that would be
less burdensome than initially establishing the reporting. Table 11.9
presents estimates of reporting burden for small entities for the
initial year and subsequent years under Sec. 668.408 on an overall and
a per institution average basis.
Table 11.9.1--Estimated Reporting Burden for Small Entities for the Initial Reporting Cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institution
Control and level count Program count Hours Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private 2-year.................................. 112 323 20,737 996,413
Proprietary 2-year.............................. 1,077 2,459 179,352 8,617,852
Public 2-year................................... 355 4,871 184,992 8,888,878
Private 4-year.................................. 470 6,156 235,839 11,332,040
Proprietary 4-year.............................. 96 800 33,992 1,633,316
Public 4-year................................... 39 664 24,318 1,168,492
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 2,149 15,273 679,230 32,636,989
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11.9.2--Estimated Reporting Burden for Small Entities for the Initial Reporting Cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institution
Control and level count Program count Hours Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private 2-year.................................. 112 323 9,895 475,467
Proprietary 2-year.............................. 1,077 2,459 90,139 4,331,191
Public 2-year................................... 355 4,871 61,180 2,939,711
Private 4-year.................................. 470 6,156 78,729 3,782,928
Proprietary 4-year.............................. 96 800 12,536 602,355
Public 4-year................................... 39 664 7,720 370,946
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 2,149 15,273 260,200 12,502,598
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11.9.3--Estimated Average Reporting Burden per Institution for Small Entities for the Initial Reporting
Cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Initial
Institution average hours average amount As % of
Control and level count Program count per per average
institution institution revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private 2-year.................. 112 323 185 8,897 0.24
Proprietary 2-year.............. 1,077 2,459 167 8,002 0.35
Public 2-year................... 355 4,871 521 25,039 0.30
Private 4-year.................. 470 6,156 502 24,111 0.12
Proprietary 4-year.............. 96 800 354 17,014 0.20
Public 4-year................... 39 664 624 29,961 0.09
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 2,149 15,273 316 15,187 0.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70181]]
Table 11.9.4--Estimated Average Reporting Burden per Institution for Small Entities for Subsequent Reporting
Cycles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average hours Average amount As % of
Control and level Institution Program count per per average
count institution institution revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private 2-year.................. 112 323 88 4,245 0.11
Proprietary 2-year.............. 1,077 2,459 84 4,022 0.18
Public 2-year................... 355 4,871 172 8,281 0.10
Private 4-year.................. 470 6,156 168 8,049 0.04
Proprietary 4-year.............. 96 800 131 6,275 0.28
Public 4-year................... 39 664 198 9,511 0.03
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 2,149 15,273 121 5,818 0.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant Federal
Regulations That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Regulations
The regulations are unlikely to conflict with or duplicate existing
Federal regulations.
Alternatives Considered
As described in section 10 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis above,
``Alternatives Considered'', we evaluated several alternative
provisions and approaches including using D/E rates only, alternative
earnings thresholds, no reporting or acknowledgment requirements for
non-GE programs, and several alternative ways of computing the
performance metrics (smaller n-sizes and different interest rates or
amortization periods). Most relevant to small entities was the
alternative of using a lower n-size, which would result in larger
effects on programs at small entities, both in terms of risk for loss
of eligibility for GE programs and greater burden for providing
warnings and/or acknowledgment. The alternative of not requiring
reporting or acknowledgments in the case of failing metrics for non-GE
programs would result in lower reporting burden for small institutions
but was deemed to be insufficient to achieve the goal of creating
greater transparency around program performance. However, for the final
regulations the Department did remove the reporting obligation for
programs that have fewer than thirty completers in the previous four
award years, which does reduce the burden for institutions with very
small programs.
The Department sought to limit the number of hours for
occupationally related educational programs to the amount that States
require to obtain licensure, where applicable. We believe that this
change would particularly benefit students by keeping tuition costs, as
well as related non-institutional expenses, lower.
12. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections
of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA).\342\ This helps so that the public understands the Department's
collection instructions, respondents can provide the requested data in
the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is
minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the
Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on
respondents. Sections 600.21, 668.43, 668.407, 668.408, and 668.605 of
this final rule contain information collection requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\342\ 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the PRA, the Department has or will at the required time
submit a copy of these sections and an Information Collections Request
to OMB for its review.
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the
corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently
valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for
failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection
instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
PRA Comments
Comments: One commenter suggested that, in calculating
administrative burden, the Department should consider the
administrative burden of all the proposed rules together, not
individually.
Discussion: The Department took great care to analyze the impact of
the proposed regulations. The Department has separated the GE and
Financial Value Transparency Framework topics from the other rules
covered in the NPRM. We, therefore, updated the RIA to reflect that, as
well as to reflect changes we made from the proposed rules to these
final rules.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters claimed the regulations will increase the
cost of higher education because institutions will pass on the
increased costs of reporting and data requirements to students,
decreasing returns for students and potentially negatively impacting
program DTE and EP outcomes.
Discussion: The Department is concerned that programs with poor
outcomes continue to receive title IV, HEA funding subsidized by
taxpayers. We acknowledged increases in costs to institutions in the
NPRM and this final rule; however, we believe they will ultimately
bring down the cost of postsecondary education by providing prospective
students with the necessary resources to make an informed decision
about their education. Students deserve to know whether their program
will leave the in the same place or worse off if they never had
attended in the first place.
We believe these rules will also protect taxpayer dollars by
eliminating poor performing programs prior to the need for reactive
actions like closed school discharges or borrower defense to repayment
discharges. Further the public deserves access to more information and
more data regarding the postsecondary institutions and programs that
they are supporting through their tax dollars.
Changes: None.
Updating Application Information Sec. 600.21.
Requirements: The change to Sec. 600.21(a)(11)(v) and (vi), would
require an institution with GE programs
[[Page 70182]]
to update any changes in certification of those program(s).
Burden Calculations: The regulatory change would require an update
to the current institutional application form, 1845-0012. The form
update would be made available for comment through a full public
clearance package before being made available for use by the effective
dates of the regulations. The burden changes would be assessed to OMB
Control Number 1845-0012, Application for Approval to Participate in
Federal Student Aid Programs.
Institutional and Programmatic Information Sec. 668.43
Requirements: Under final Sec. 668.43(d), the Department will
establish and maintain a website for posting and distributing key
information pertaining to the institution's educational programs. An
institution will provide such information as the Department prescribes
through a notice published in the Federal Register for prospective and
enrolled students through the website.
This information could include, but will not be limited to, as
reasonably available, the primary occupations that the program prepares
students to enter, along with links to occupational profiles on O*NET
or its successor site; the program's or institution's completion rates
and withdrawal rates for full-time and less-than-full-time students, as
reported to or calculated by the Department; the length of the program
in calendar time; the total number of individuals enrolled in the
program during the most recently completed award year; the total cost
of tuition and fees, and the total cost of books, supplies, and
equipment, that a student would incur for completing the program within
the length of the program; the percentage of the individuals enrolled
in the program during the most recently completed award year who
received a title IV, HEA loan, a private education loan, or both; and
whether the program is programmatically accredited and the name of the
accrediting agency.
The institution will be required to provide a prominent link and
any other needed information to access the website on any web page
containing academic, cost, financial aid, or admissions information
about the program or institution. The Department could require the
institution to modify a web page if the information about how to access
the Department's website is not sufficiently prominent, readily
accessible, clear, conspicuous, or direct.
In addition, the Department will require the institution to provide
the relevant information to access the website to any prospective
student or third party acting on behalf of the prospective student
before the prospective student signs an enrollment agreement, completes
registration, or makes a financial commitment to the institution.
Burden Calculations: The final regulatory language in Sec.
668.43(d) will add burden to all institutions, domestic and foreign.
The changes in Sec. 668.43(d) will require institutions to supply the
Department with specific information about programs it is offering as
well as provide to enrolled and prospective students this information.
We believe that this reporting activity will require an estimated
50 hours per institution. We estimate that it will take private
nonprofit institutions 70,500 hours (1,410 x 50 = 70,500) to complete
the required reporting activity. We estimate that it will take
proprietary institutions 68,600 hours (1,372 x 50 = 68,600) to complete
the required reporting activity. We estimate that it will take public
institutions 86,800 hours (1,736 x 50 = 86,800) to complete the
required reporting activity.
The total estimated increase in burden to OMB Control Number 1845-
0022 for Sec. 668.43 is 225,900 hours with a total rounded estimated
cost of $10,854,495.
Student Assistance General Provisions--OMB Control Number 1845-0022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost $48.05 per
Affected entity Respondent Responses Burden hours institution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private nonprofit................... 1,410 1,410 70,500 3,387,525.00
Proprietary......................... 1,372 1,372 68,600 3,296,230.00
Public.............................. 1,736 1,736 86,800 4,170,740.00
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 4,518 4,518 225,900 10,854,495.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student Acknowledgments Sec. 668.407
Requirements: The final rule provides in Sec. 668.407(a) that a
student will be required to provide an acknowledgment of the D/E rate
information for any year for which the Secretary notifies an
institution that the program has failing D/E rates for the year in
which the D/E rates were most recently calculated by the Department.
This final rule excludes undergraduate degree programs from the
acknowledgment requirements at Sec. 668.407(a).
Burden Calculations: The final regulatory language in Sec. 668.407
will add burden to institutions. The changes in Sec. 668.407 will
require institutions to develop and provide notices to prospective
students that they are required to review information on the
Secretary's website and complete acknowledge that they have viewed this
information if the program to which they are applying has unacceptable
D/E rates. The institution would also be obligated to check whether an
individual has completed the acknowledgment before entering into an
agreement to enroll the student. However, to reduce burden for
institutions and students, such an acknowledgment will only be required
when a student will attend a program that does not lead to an
undergraduate degree and leads to high debt burden, or when a student
will attend a GE program at risk of losing title IV, HEA eligibility.
In the burden calculation for Sec. 668.407 here, we account for
burden for non-GE programs. We account for all burden related to GE
programs, including where such burden comes from provisions that apply
to all programs, as in 668.407, under our discussion of 668.605. We
believe that most institutions will develop the notice directing
impacted students to the Department's program information website and
make it available electronically to current and prospective students.
We believe that this action will require an estimated 1 hour per
affected program. We estimate that it would take private institutions
670 hours (670 programs x 1 hour = 670) to develop and deliver the
required notice based on the information provided by the Department. We
estimate that it will take public institutions 109 hours (109 programs
x 1 hour = 109) to develop and deliver the required notice based on the
[[Page 70183]]
information provided by the Department.
The changes in Sec. 668.407(a) will require institutions to direct
prospective and students enrolled in programs that failed the D/E rates
for the year in which the D/E rates were most recently calculated by
the Department to the Department's program information website. We
estimate that it will take the 88,000 students 10 minutes to read the
notice and go to the program information website to acknowledge
receiving the information for a total of hours (88,000 students x .17
hours = 14,960).
The total estimated increase in burden to OMB Control Number 1845-
0174 for Sec. 668.407 is 15,739 hours with a total rounded estimated
cost of $370,441.
Student Acknowledgments--OMB Control Number 1845-0174
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost $48.05 per
institution
Affected entity Respondent Responses Burden hours $22.26 per
individual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual.......................... 88,000 88,000 14,960 $333,010
Private nonprofit................... 134 670 670 32,194
Public.............................. 11 109 109 5,237
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 88,145 88,779 15,739 370,441
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting Requirements Sec. 668.408
Requirements: The final rule in subpart Q, Financial Value
Transparency, adds new Sec. 668.408 to establish institutional
reporting requirements for students who enroll in, complete, or
withdraw from a GE program or eligible non-GE program and to define the
timeframe for institutions to report this information.
Based on projected data provided earlier in the RIA, the Department
anticipates that approximately 4,518 institutions will be required to
provide the data specified in Sec. 668.408. We anticipate there will
be initial estimated reporting year's burden of 5,078,259 hours total
for all institutions. This estimate incorporates establishing required
data routines, testing of reports and returned data, and ultimately
submission of the data to the Department. It is anticipated that once
these data routines and reporting mechanism are established, subsequent
year estimated reporting will decrease to 1,459,603 hours total for all
institutions.
Burden Calculations: The regulatory change will require an update
to a Federal Student Aid data system. Once the systems for receiving
and sharing the data are established, the reporting update will be made
available for comment through a full information collection package
with public comment periods before being made available for use on or
after the effective dates of the regulations. The burden changes will
be assessed to the OMB Control Number assigned to the system.
Student Warnings and Acknowledgments Sec. 668.605
Requirements: The final rule adds a new Sec. 668.605 to require
warnings to current and prospective students if a GE program is at risk
of losing title IV, HEA eligibility, to specify the content and
delivery parameters of such notifications, and to require that students
must acknowledge having seen the warning before the institution may
enter an enrollment agreement, complete registration, or disburse any
title IV, HEA funds.
In addition, warnings provided to students enrolled in GE programs
will include a description of the academic and financial options
available to continue their education in another program at the
institution in the event that the program loses eligibility, including
whether the students could transfer academic credit earned in the
program to another program at the institution and which course credit
would transfer; an indication of whether, in the event of a loss of
eligibility, the institution would continue to provide instruction in
the program to allow students to complete the program, and refund the
tuition, fees, and other required charges paid to the institution for
enrollment in the program; and an explanation of whether, in the event
that the program loses eligibility, the students could transfer credits
earned in the program to another institution through an established
articulation agreement or teach-out.
The institution will be required to provide alternatives to an
English-language warning for current and prospective students with
limited English proficiency.
Burden Calculations: The final regulatory language in Sec. 668.605
will add burden to institutions. The changes in Sec. 668.605 will
require institutions to provide warning notices to enrolled and
prospective students that a GE program has unacceptable D/E rates or an
unacceptable earnings premium measure for the year in which the D/E
rates or earnings premium measure were most recently calculated by the
Department along with warnings about the potential loss of title IV,
HEA eligibility.
We account for all burden related to GE programs, including where
such burden comes from provisions that apply to all programs, as in
Sec. 668.407, under our discussion of Sec. 668.605. We believe that
most institutions will develop the warning and make it available
electronically to current and prospective students. We believe that
this action will require an estimated 1 hour per affected program. We
estimate that it will take private institutions 9 hours (9 programs x 1
hour = 9) to develop and deliver the required warning based on the
information provided by the Department. We estimate that it will take
proprietary institutions 71 hours (71 programs x 1 hour = 71) to
develop and deliver the required warning based on the information
provided by the Department. We estimate that it will take public
institutions 2 hours (2 programs x 1 hour = 2) to develop and deliver
the required warning based on the information provided by the
Department.
The changes in Sec. 668.605(d) will require institutions to
provide alternatives to the English-language warning notices to
enrolled and prospective students with limited English proficiency.
We estimate that it will take private institutions 72 hours (9
programs x 8 hours = 72) to develop and deliver the required alternate
language the required warning based on the information provided by the
Department. We estimate that it will take proprietary institutions 568
hours (71 programs x 8
[[Page 70184]]
hours = 568) to develop and deliver the required alternate language the
required warning based on the information provided by the Department.
We estimate that it will take public institutions 16 hours (2 programs
x 8 hours = 16) to develop and deliver the required warning based on
the information provided by the Department.
The final changes in Sec. 668.605(e) will require institutions to
provide the warning notices to students enrolled in the GE programs
with failing metrics. We estimate that it will take the 60,700 students
10 minutes to read the warning and go to the program information
website to acknowledge receiving the information for a total of 10,319
hours (60,700 students x .17 hours = 10,319).
The changes in Sec. 668.605(f) will require institutions to
provide the warning notices to prospective students who express
interest in the effected GE programs. We estimate that it will take the
69,805 prospective students 10 minutes to read the warning and go to
the program information website to acknowledge receiving the
information for a total of 11,867 hours (69,805 students x .17 hours =
11,867).
The total estimated increase in burden to OMB Control Number 1845-
0173 for Sec. 668.605 is 22,924 hours with a total rounded estimated
cost of $529,322.
GE Student Warnings and Acknowledgments--OMB Control Number 1845-0173
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost $48.05 per
institution
Affected entity Respondent Responses Burden hours $22.26 per
individual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual.......................... 130,505 130,505 22,186 $493,860
Private nonprofit................... 9 18 81 3,893
Proprietary......................... 71 142 639 30,704
Public.............................. 2 4 18 865
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 130,587 130,669 22,924 529,322
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the discussions above, the following chart
describes the sections of the final regulations involving information
collections, the information being collected and the collections that
the Department will submit to OMB for approval and public comment under
the PRA, and the estimated costs associated with the information
collections. The monetized net cost of the increased burden for
institutions, lenders, guaranty agencies and students, using wage data
developed using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. For individuals,
we have used the median hourly wage for all occupations, which is
$22.26 per hour according to BLS (www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000). For institutions we have used the median hourly
wage for Education Administrators, Postsecondary, which is $48.05 per
hour according to BLS (www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes119033.htm).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
costs-- $48.05
OMB control institutional
Regulatory Information number and $22.26
section collection estimated individual
burden unless
otherwise noted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 668.43... Amend Sec. 668.43 1845-0022 $+10,854,495.
to establish a +225,900 hrs.
website for the
posting and
distribution of key
information
pertaining to the
institution's
educational
programs, and to
require
institutions to
provide information
about how to access
that website to a
prospective student
before the student
enrolls, registers,
or makes a
financial
commitment to the
institution.
Sec. 668.407.. Add a new Sec. 1845-0174 $+370,441.
668.407 to require +15,739.
current and
prospective
students to
acknowledge having
seen the
information on the
program information
website maintained
by the Secretary if
an eligible program
has failed the D/E
rates measure, to
specify the content
and delivery of
such
acknowledgments,
and to require that
students must
provide the
acknowledgment
before the
institution enters
an enrollment
agreement.
Sec. 668.408.. Add a new Sec. Burden will be Costs will be
668.408 to cleared at a cleared
establish later date through
institutional through a separate
reporting separate information
requirements for information collection.
students who enroll collection.
in, complete, or
withdraw from a GE
program or eligible
non-GE program and
to establish the
reporting timeframe.
Sec. 668.605.. Add a new Sec. 1845-0173 $+529,322.
668.605 to require +22,924.
warnings to current
and prospective
students if a GE
program is at risk
of losing title IV,
HEA eligibility, to
specify the content
and delivery
parameters of such
notifications, and
to require that
students must
acknowledge having
seen the warning
before the
institution may
enter an enrollment
agreement, complete
registration, or
disburse any title
IV, HEA funds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total burden hours and change in burden hours associated with
each OMB Control number affected by the final regulations follows:
1845-0022, 1845-0173, 1845-0174.
[[Page 70185]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total burden Change in burden
Control No. hours hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1845-0022......................... 2,514,148 +225,900
1845-0173......................... 15,739 +15,739
1845-0174......................... 22,924 +22,924
-------------------------------------
Total......................... 2,552,811 264,563
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to comment on the final information collection
requirements, please send your comments to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs in OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the U.S.
Department of Education. Send these comments by email to
[email protected] or by fax to (202)395-6974. You may also send a
copy of these comments to the Department contact named in the ADDRESSES
section of the preamble.
We have prepared the Information Collection Request (ICR) for these
collections. You may review the ICR which is available at
www.reginfo.gov. Click on Information Collection Review. These
collections are identified as collections 1845-0022, 1845-0173, and
1845-0174.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive
order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened
federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
13. Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires us to provide meaningful and timely
input by State and local elected officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications. ``Federalism
implications'' means substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The final regulations do not have federalism implications.
Accessible Format: On request to one of the program contact persons
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The
Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that
may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive,
an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other
accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published
in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
List of Subjects
34 CFR Part 600
Colleges and universities, Foreign relations, Grant programs--
education, Loan programs-education, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Selective Service System, Student aid, Vocational
education.
34 CFR Part 668
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Colleges and
universities, Consumer protection, Grant programs-education, Loan
programs--education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Selective Service System, Student aid, Vocational education.
Miguel A. Cardona,
Secretary of Education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends
parts 600 and 668 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 600--INSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT
OF 1965, AS AMENDED
0
1. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001, 1002, 1003, 1088, 1091, 1094, 1099b,
and 1099c, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 600.10 is amended by redesignating paragraph (c)(3) as
paragraph (c)(4) and adding a new paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 600.10 Date, extent, duration, and consequence of eligibility.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) For a gainful employment program under 34 CFR part 668, subpart
S, subject to any restrictions in 34 CFR 668.603 on establishing or
reestablishing the eligibility of the program, an eligible institution
must update its application under Sec. 600.21.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 600.21 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text.
0
b. In paragraph (a)(11)(iv), removing the word ``or''.
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(11)(v).
0
d. Adding paragraph (a)(11)(vi).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 600.21 Updating application information.
(a) Reporting requirements. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of
this section, an eligible institution must report to the Secretary, in
a manner prescribed by the Secretary and no later than 10 days after
the change occurs, any change in the following:
* * * * *
(11) * * *
(v) Changing the program's name, classification of instructional
program (CIP) code, or credential level; or
(vi) Updating the certification pursuant to 34 CFR 668.604(b).
* * * * *
PART 668--STUDENT ASSISTANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS
0
4. The authority citation for part 668 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 70186]]
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001-1003, 1070g, 1085, 1088, 1091, 1092,
1094, 1099c, 1099c-1, 1221e-3, and 1231a, unless otherwise noted.
Section 668.14 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1085, 1088, 1091,
1092, 1094, 1099a-3, 1099c, and 1141.
Section 668.41 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1092, 1094, 1099c.
Section 668.91 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1082, 1094.
Section 668.171 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1094 and 1099c and 5
U.S.C. 404.
Section 668.172 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1094 and 1099c and 5
U.S.C. 404.
Section 668.175 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1094 and 1099c.
0
5. Section 668.2 is amended by adding to paragraph (b), in alphabetical
order, definitions of ``Annual debt-to-earnings rate (annual D/E
rate),'' ``Classification of instructional program (CIP) code,''
``Cohort period,'' ``Credential level,'' ``Debt-to-earnings rates (D/E
rates),'' ``Discretionary debt-to-earnings rate (discretionary D/E
rate),'' ``Earnings premium,'' ``Earnings threshold,'' ``Eligible non-
GE program,'' ``Federal agency with earnings data,'' ``Gainful
employment program (GE program),'' ``Institutional grants and
scholarships,'' ``Length of the program,'' ``Metropolitan statistical
area,'' ``Poverty Guideline,'' ``Prospective student,'' ``Qualifying
graduate program,'' ``Student,'' and ``Substantially similar program''
to read as follows:
Sec. 668.2 General definitions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Annual debt-to-earnings rate (annual D/E rate): The ratio of a
program's annual loan payment amount to the annual earnings of the
students who completed the program, expressed as a percentage, as
calculated under Sec. 668.403.
* * * * *
Classification of instructional program (CIP) code: A taxonomy of
instructional program classifications and descriptions developed by the
U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES). Specific programs offered by institutions are classified using
a six-digit CIP code.
Cohort period: The set of award years used to identify a cohort of
students who completed a program and whose debt and earnings outcomes
are used to calculate debt-to-earnings rates and the earnings premium
measure under subpart Q of this part. The Secretary uses a 2-year
cohort period to calculate the debt-to-earnings rates and earnings
premium measure for a program when the number of students (after
exclusions identified in Sec. Sec. 668.403(e) and 668.404(c)) in the
2-year cohort period is 30 or more. The Secretary uses a 4-year cohort
period to calculate the debt-to-earnings rates and earnings premium
measure when the number of students completing the program in the two-
year cohort period is fewer than 30 and when the number of students
completing the program in the 4-year cohort period is 30 or more. The
cohort period covers consecutive award years that are--
(1) For the 2-year cohort period--
(i) The third and fourth award years prior to the year for which
the most recent data are available from the Federal agency with
earnings data at the time the D/E rates and earnings premium measure
are calculated, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 668.403 and 668.404; or
(ii) For a qualifying graduate program, the sixth and seventh award
years prior to the year for which the most recent data are available
from the Federal agency with earnings data at the time the D/E rates
and earnings premium measure are calculated.
(2) For the four-year cohort period--
(i) The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth award years prior to the
year for which the most recent data are available from the Federal
agency with earnings data at the time the D/E rates and earnings
premium measure are calculated, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 668.403 and
668.404; or
(ii) For a qualifying graduate program, the sixth, seventh, eighth,
and ninth award years prior to the year for which the most recent
earnings data are available from the Federal agency with earnings data
at the time the D/E rates and earnings premium measure are calculated.
Credential level: The level of the academic credential awarded by
an institution to students who complete the program. For the purposes
of this part, the undergraduate credential levels are: undergraduate
certificate or diploma, associate degree, bachelor's degree, and post-
baccalaureate certificate; and the graduate credential levels are
master's degree, doctoral degree, first-professional degree (e.g., MD,
DDS, JD), and graduate certificate (including a postgraduate
certificate).
Debt-to-earnings rates (D/E rates): The discretionary debt-to-
earnings rate and annual debt-to-earnings rate as calculated under
Sec. 668.403.
* * * * *
Discretionary debt-to-earnings rate (discretionary D/E rate): The
percentage of a program's annual loan payment compared to the
discretionary earnings of the students who completed the program, as
calculated under Sec. 668.403.
Earnings premium: The amount by which the median annual earnings of
students who recently completed a program exceed the earnings
threshold, as calculated under Sec. 668.404. If the median annual
earnings of recent completers is equal to the earnings threshold, the
earnings premium is zero. If the median annual earnings of recent
completers is less than the earnings threshold, the earnings premium is
negative.
Earnings threshold: Based on data from the Census Bureau, the
median earnings for working adults aged 25-34, who either worked during
the year or indicated they were unemployed (i.e., not employed but
looking for and available to work) when interviewed, with only a high
school diploma (or recognized equivalent)--
(1) In the State in which the institution is located; or
(2) Nationally, if fewer than 50 percent of the students in the
program are from the State where the institution is located, or if the
institution is a foreign institution.
Eligible non-GE program: An educational program other than a
gainful employment (GE) program offered by an institution and included
in the institution's participation in the title IV, HEA programs,
identified by a combination of the institution's six-digit Office of
Postsecondary Education ID (OPEID) number, the program's six-digit CIP
code as assigned by the institution or determined by the Secretary, and
the program's credential level. Includes all coursework associated with
the program's credential level.
* * * * *
Federal agency with earnings data: A Federal agency with which the
Department enters into an agreement to access earnings data for the D/E
rates and earnings threshold measure. The agency must have individual
earnings data sufficient to match with title IV, HEA recipients who
completed any eligible program during the cohort period and may include
agencies such as the Treasury Department (including the Internal
Revenue Service), the Social Security Administration (SSA), the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Census Bureau.
* * * * *
Gainful employment program (GE program): An educational program
offered by an institution under Sec. 668.8(c)(3) or (d) and identified
by a combination of the institution's six-digit OPEID number, the
program's six-digit CIP code as assigned by the institution or
determined by the Secretary, and the program's credential level.
* * * * *
[[Page 70187]]
Institutional grants and scholarships: Assistance that the
institution or its affiliate controls or directs to reduce or offset
the original amount of a student's institutional costs and that does
not have to be repaid. Typically, an institutional grant or scholarship
includes a grant, scholarship, fellowship, discount, or fee waiver.
* * * * *
Length of the program: The amount of time in weeks, months, or
years that is specified in the institution's catalog, marketing
materials, or other official publications for a student to complete the
requirements needed to obtain the degree or credential offered by the
program.
* * * * *
Metropolitan statistical area: A core area containing a substantial
population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high
degree of economic and social integration with that core.
* * * * *
Poverty Guideline: The Poverty Guideline for a single person in the
continental United States, as published by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services and available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty
or its successor site.
* * * * *
Prospective student: An individual who has contacted an eligible
institution for the purpose of requesting information about enrolling
in a program or who has been contacted directly by the institution or
by a third party on behalf of the institution about enrolling in a
program.
Qualifying graduate program: (1) For the first three award years
that the Secretary calculates debt-to-earnings rates and the earnings
premium measure under subpart Q of this part (``initial period''), a
graduate program--
(i) Whose students must complete required postgraduation training
programs to obtain licensure in one of the following fields: medicine,
osteopathy, dentistry, clinical psychology, marriage and family
counseling, clinical social work, and clinical counseling; and
(ii) For which the institution attests, in the manner established
by the Secretary, that--
(A) If necessary for licensure, the program is accredited by an
accrediting agency that meets State requirements; and
(B) At least half of the program's graduates obtain licensure in a
State where the postgraduation training requirements apply.
(2)(i) After the initial period, the graduate programs that are on
the list described in paragraph (2)(ii) of this definition and for
which the Secretary has received an attestation that meets the
requirements in paragraph (1)(ii) of this definition.
(ii) For the first award year following the initial period, and
every three years thereafter, using publicly available information and
information received in response to a request for information, the
Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a list of graduate degree
fields (based on their credential level and CIP codes) that may contain
qualifying graduate programs by identifying fields--
(A) That lead to a graduate (master's, first-professional, or
doctoral) degree;
(B) For which the Department determines that graduates must
complete a required postgraduate training program that takes, on
average, three or more years to complete; and
(C) For which, based on College Scorecard data, the Secretary
determines that a majority of programs with the same credential level
and CIP code have outlier earnings growth. An individual program has
outlier earnings growth if the percent change in median earnings
between its earnings measured one or three years post-completion and
its earnings measured either five or ten years post-completion is more
than two standard deviations above the average earnings growth for
other programs with the same credential level.
(3) For the purpose of this definition, a ``required postgraduation
training program'' is a supervised training program that--
(i) Requires the student to hold a degree in one of the listed
fields in paragraph (1)(i) of this definition or one of the fields
identified in the list described in paragraph (2)(ii) of this
definition; and
(ii) Must be completed before the student may be licensed by a
State and board certified for professional practice or service.
* * * * *
Student: For the purposes of subparts Q and S of this part and of
Sec. 668.43(d), an individual who received title IV, HEA program funds
for enrolling in the program.
* * * * *
Substantially similar program: For the purposes of subpart Q and S
of this part, a program is substantially similar to another program if
the two programs share the same four-digit CIP code. The Secretary
presumes a program is not substantially similar to another program if
the two programs have different four-digit CIP codes, but the
institution must provide an explanation of how the new program is not
substantially similar to the ineligible or voluntarily discontinued
program with its certification under Sec. 668.604.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 668.43 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading.
0
b. Adding paragraph (d).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 668.43 Institutional and programmatic information.
* * * * *
(d)(1) Program information website. Beginning on July 1, 2026, the
Secretary will establish and maintain a website with information about
institutions and their educational programs. For this purpose, an
institution must provide to the Department such information about the
institution and its programs as the Secretary prescribes through a
notice published in the Federal Register. The Secretary may conduct
consumer testing to inform the design of the website.
(i) The website must include, but is not limited to, the following
items, to the extent reasonably available:
(A) The published length of the program in calendar time (i.e.,
weeks, months, years).
(B) The total number of individuals enrolled in the program during
the most recently completed award year.
(C) The total cost of tuition and fees, and the total cost of
books, supplies, and equipment, that a student would incur for
completing the program within the published length of the program.
(D) Of the individuals enrolled in the program during the most
recently completed award year, the percentage who received a Direct
Loan Program loan, a private loan, or both for enrollment in the
program.
(E) As calculated by the Secretary, the median loan debt of
students who completed the program during the most recently completed
award year or for all students who completed or withdrew from the
program during that award year.
(F) As provided by the Secretary, the median earnings of students
who completed the program or of all students who completed or withdrew
from the program, during a period determined by the Secretary.
(G) Whether the program is programmatically accredited and the name
of the accrediting agency, as reported to the Secretary.
(H) As calculated by the Secretary, the program's debt-to-earnings
rates.
(I) As calculated by the Secretary, the program's earnings premium
measure.
[[Page 70188]]
(ii) The website may also include other information deemed appropriate
by the Secretary, such as the following items:
(A) The primary occupations (by name, SOC code, or both) that the
program prepares students to enter, along with links to occupational
profiles on O*NET (www.onetonline.org) or its successor site.
(B) As reported to or calculated by the Secretary, the program or
institution's completion rates and withdrawal rates for full-time and
less-than-full-time students.
(C) As calculated by the Secretary, the medians of the total cost
of tuition and fees, and the total cost of books, supplies, and
equipment, and the total net cost of attendance paid by students
completing the program.
(D) As calculated by the Secretary, the loan repayment rate for
students or graduates who entered repayment on Direct Loan Program
loans during a period determined by the Secretary.
(E) Whether students who graduate from a program are required to
complete postgraduation training program to obtain licensure before
eligible for independent practice.
(2) Program web pages. The institution must provide a prominent
link to, and any other needed information to access, the website
maintained by the Secretary on any web page containing academic, cost,
financial aid, or admissions information about the program or
institution. The Secretary may require the institution to modify a web
page if the information is not sufficiently prominent, readily
accessible, clear, conspicuous, or direct.
(3) Distribution to prospective students. The institution must
provide the relevant information to access the website maintained by
the Secretary to any prospective student, or a third party acting on
behalf of the prospective student, before the prospective student signs
an enrollment agreement, completes registration, or makes a financial
commitment to the institution.
(4) Distribution to enrolled students. The institution must provide
the relevant information to access the website maintained by the
Secretary to any enrolled title IV, HEA recipient prior to the start
date of the first payment period associated with each subsequent award
year in which the student continues enrollment at the institution.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 668.91 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(3)(v)(B)(2), removing the period at the end of the
paragraph and adding, in its place, ``; and''.
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(3)(vi).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 668.91 Initial and final decisions.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(vi) In a termination action against a GE program based upon the
program's failure to meet the requirements in Sec. 668.403 or Sec.
668.404, the hearing official must terminate the program's eligibility
unless the hearing official concludes that the Secretary erred in the
applicable calculation.
* * * * *
0
8. Add subpart Q to read as follows:
Subpart Q--Financial Value Transparency
Sec.
668.401 Financial value transparency scope and purpose.
668.402 Financial value transparency framework.
668.403 Calculating D/E rates.
668.404 Calculating earnings premium measure.
668.405 Process for obtaining data and calculating D/E rates and
earnings premium measure.
668.406 Determination of the D/E rates and earnings premium measure.
668.407 Student acknowledgments.
668.408 Reporting requirements.
668.409 Severability.
Subpart Q--Financial Value Transparency
Sec. 668.401 Financial value transparency scope and purpose.
(a) General. Except as provided under paragraph (b) of this
section, this subpart applies to a GE program or eligible non-GE
program offered by an eligible institution, and establishes the rules
and procedures under which--
(1) An institution reports information about the program to the
Secretary; and
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the
Secretary assesses the program's debt and earnings outcomes.
(b) Applicability. (1) This subpart does not apply to institutions
located in U.S. Territories or freely associated states, except that
such institutions are subject to the reporting requirements in Sec.
668.408 and the Secretary will follow the procedures in Sec. Sec.
668.403(b) and (d) and 668.405(b) and (c) to calculate median debt and
obtain earnings information for their GE programs and eligible non-GE
programs.
(2) For each award year that the Secretary calculates D/E rates or
the earnings premium measure under Sec. 668.402, this subpart does not
apply to an institution if, over the most recently completed four award
years, it offered no groups of substantially similar programs, defined
as all programs in the same four-digit CIP code at an institution, with
30 or more completers.
Sec. 668.402 Financial value transparency framework.
(a) General. The Secretary assesses the program's debt and earnings
outcomes using debt-to-earnings rates (D/E rates) and an earnings
premium measure.
(b) Debt-to-earnings rates. The Secretary calculates for each award
year two D/E rates for an eligible program, the discretionary debt-to-
earnings rate, and the annual debt-to-earnings rate, using the
procedures in Sec. Sec. 668.403 and 668.405.
(c) Outcomes of the D/E rates. (1) A program passes the D/E rates
if--
(i) Its discretionary debt-to-earnings rate is less than or equal
to 20 percent;
(ii) Its annual debt-to-earnings rate is less than or equal to 8
percent; or
(iii) The denominator (median annual or discretionary earnings) of
either rate is zero and the numerator (median debt payments) is zero.
(2) A program fails the D/E rates if--
(i) Its discretionary debt-to-earnings rate is greater than 20
percent or the income for the denominator of the rate (median
discretionary earnings) is negative or zero and the numerator (median
debt payments) is positive; and
(ii) Its annual debt-to-earnings rate is greater than 8 percent or
the denominator of the rate (median annual earnings) is zero and the
numerator (median debt payments) is positive.
(d) Earnings premium measure. For each award year, the Secretary
calculates the earnings premium measure for an eligible program, using
the procedures in Sec. Sec. 668.404 and 668.405.
(e) Outcomes of the earnings premium measure. (1) A program passes
the earnings premium measure if the median annual earnings of the
students who completed the program exceed the earnings threshold.
(2) A program fails the earnings premium measure if the median
annual earnings of the students who completed the program are equal to
or less than the earnings threshold.
Sec. 668.403 Calculating D/E rates.
(a) General. Except as provided under paragraph (f) of this
section, for each award year, the Secretary calculates D/E rates for a
program as follows:
(1) Discretionary debt-to-earnings rate = annual loan payment/(the
median annual earnings--(1.5 x Poverty Guideline)). For the purposes of
this paragraph (a)(1), the Secretary applies the Poverty Guideline for
the most recent calendar year for which annual
[[Page 70189]]
earnings are obtained under paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Annual debt-to-earnings rate = annual loan payment/the median
annual earnings.
(b) Annual loan payment. The Secretary calculates the annual loan
payment for a program by--
(1)(i) Determining the median loan debt of the students who
completed the program during the cohort period, based on the lesser of
the loan debt incurred by each student as determined under paragraph
(d) of this section or the total amount for tuition and fees and books,
equipment, and supplies for each student, less the amount of
institutional grant or scholarship funds provided to that student;
(ii) Removing, if applicable, the appropriate number of largest
loan debts as described in Sec. 668.405(d)(2); and
(iii) Calculating the median of the remaining amounts; and
(2) Amortizing the median loan debt--
(i)(A) Over a 10-year repayment period for a program that leads to
an undergraduate certificate, a post-baccalaureate certificate, an
associate degree, or a graduate certificate;
(B) Over a 15-year repayment period for a program that leads to a
bachelor's degree or a master's degree; or
(C) Over a 20-year repayment period for any other program; and
(ii) Using an annual interest rate that is the average of the
annual statutory interest rates on Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loans
that were in effect during--
(A) The three consecutive award years, ending in the final year of
the cohort period, for undergraduate certificate programs, post-
baccalaureate certificate programs, and associate degree programs. For
these programs, the Secretary uses the Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan
interest rate applicable to undergraduate students;
(B) The three consecutive award years, ending in the final year of
the cohort period, for graduate certificate programs and master's
degree programs. For these programs, the Secretary uses the Federal
Direct Unsubsidized Loan interest rate applicable to graduate students;
(C) The six consecutive award years, ending in the final year of
the cohort period, for bachelor's degree programs. For these programs,
the Secretary uses the Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan interest rate
applicable to undergraduate students; and
(D) The six consecutive award years, ending in the final year of
the cohort period, for doctoral programs and first professional degree
programs. For these programs, the Secretary uses the Federal Direct
Unsubsidized Loan interest rate applicable to graduate students.
(c) Annual earnings. (1) The Secretary obtains from a Federal
agency with earnings data, under Sec. 668.405, the most currently
available median annual earnings of the students who completed the
program during the cohort period and who are not excluded under
paragraph (e) of this section; and
(2) The Secretary uses the median annual earnings to calculate the
D/E rates.
(d) Loan debt and assessed charges. (1) In determining the loan
debt for a student, the Secretary includes--
(i) The amount of Direct Loans that the student borrowed (total
amount disbursed less any cancellations or adjustments except for those
related to false certification, borrower defense discharges, or
categorical debt relief initiated under the Secretary's statutory
authority) for enrollment in the program, excluding Direct PLUS Loans
made to parents of dependent students and Direct Unsubsidized Loans
that were converted from TEACH Grants;
(ii) Any private education loans as defined in 34 CFR 601.2,
including private education loans made by the institution, that the
student borrowed for enrollment in the program and that are required to
be reported by the institution under Sec. 668.408; and
(iii) The amount outstanding, as of the date the student completes
the program, on any other credit (including any unpaid charges)
extended by or on behalf of the institution for enrollment in any
program attended at the institution that the student is obligated to
repay after completing the program, including extensions of credit
described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the definition of, and excluded
from, the term ``private education loan'' in 34 CFR 601.2;
(2) The Secretary attributes all the loan debt incurred by the
student for enrollment in any--
(i) Undergraduate program at the institution to the highest
credentialed undergraduate program subsequently completed by the
student at the institution as of the end of the most recently completed
award year prior to the calculation of the D/E rates under this
section; and
(ii) Graduate program at the institution to the highest
credentialed graduate program subsequently completed by the student at
the institution as of the end of the most recently completed award year
prior to the calculation of the D/E rates under this section; and
(3) The Secretary excludes any loan debt incurred by the student
for enrollment in any program at any other institution. However, the
Secretary may include loan debt incurred by the student for enrollment
in programs at other institutions if the institution and the other
institutions are under common ownership or control, as determined by
the Secretary in accordance with 34 CFR 600.31.
(e) Exclusions. The Secretary excludes a student from both the
numerator and the denominator of the D/E rates calculation if the
Secretary determines that--
(1) One or more of the student's Direct Loan Program loans are
under consideration by the Secretary, or have been approved, for a
discharge on the basis of the student's total and permanent disability,
under 34 CFR 674.61, 682.402, or 685.212;
(2) The student was enrolled full time in any other eligible
program at the institution or at another institution during the
calendar year for which the Secretary obtains earnings information
under paragraph (c) of this section;
(3) For undergraduate programs, the student completed a higher
credentialed undergraduate program at the institution subsequent to
completing the program as of the end of the most recently completed
award year prior to the calculation of the D/E rates under this
section;
(4) For graduate programs, the student completed a higher
credentialed graduate program at the institution subsequent to
completing the program as of the end of the most recently completed
award year prior to the calculation of the D/E rates under this
section;
(5) The student is enrolled in an approved prison education
program;
(6) The student is enrolled in a comprehensive transition and
postsecondary program; or
(7) The student died.
(f) D/E rates not issued. The Secretary does not issue D/E rates
for a program under Sec. 668.406 if--
(1) After applying the exclusions in paragraph (e) of this section,
fewer than 30 students completed the program during the two-year or
four-year cohort period; or
(2) The Federal agency with earnings data does not provide the
median earnings for the program as provided under paragraph (c) of this
section.
Sec. 668.404 Calculating earnings premium measure.
(a) General. Except as provided under paragraph (d) of this
section, for each award year, the Secretary calculates the
[[Page 70190]]
earnings premium measure for a program by determining whether the
median annual earnings of the students who completed the program exceed
the earnings threshold.
(b) Median annual earnings; earnings threshold. (1) The Secretary
obtains from a Federal agency with earnings data, under Sec. 668.405,
the most currently available median annual earnings of the students who
completed the program during the cohort period and who are not excluded
under paragraph (c) of this section; and
(2) The Secretary uses the median annual earnings of students with
a high school diploma or GED using data from the Census Bureau to
calculate the earnings threshold described in Sec. 668.2.
(3) The Secretary determines the earnings thresholds and publishes
the thresholds annually through a notice in the Federal Register.
(c) Exclusions. The Secretary excludes a student from the earnings
premium measure calculation if the Secretary determines that--
(1) One or more of the student's Direct Loan Program loans are
under consideration by the Secretary, or have been approved, for a
discharge on the basis of the student's total and permanent disability,
under 34 CFR 674.61, 682.402, or 685.212;
(2) The student was enrolled full-time in any other eligible
program at the institution or at another institution during the
calendar year for which the Secretary obtains earnings information
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section;
(3) For undergraduate programs, the student completed a higher
credentialed undergraduate program at the institution subsequent to
completing the program as of the end of the most recently completed
award year prior to the calculation of the earnings premium measure
under this section;
(4) For graduate programs, the student completed a higher
credentialed graduate program at the institution subsequent to
completing the program as of the end of the most recently completed
award year prior to the calculation of the earnings premium measure
under this section;
(5) The student is enrolled in an approved prison education
program;
(6) The student is enrolled in a comprehensive transition and
postsecondary program; or
(7) The student died.
(d) Earnings premium measures not issued. The Secretary does not
issue the earnings premium measure for a program under Sec. 668.406
if--
(1) After applying the exclusions in paragraph (c) of this section,
fewer than 30 students completed the program during the two-year or
four-year cohort period; or
(2) The Federal agency with earnings data does not provide the
median earnings for the program as provided under paragraph (b) of this
section.
Sec. 668.405 Process for obtaining data and calculating D/E rates and
earnings premium measure.
(a) Administrative data. In calculating the D/E rates and earnings
premium measure for a program, the Secretary uses student enrollment,
disbursement, and program data, or other data the institution is
required to report to the Secretary to support its administration of,
or participation in, the title IV, HEA programs. In accordance with
procedures established by the Secretary, the institution must update or
otherwise correct any reported data no later than 60 days after the end
of an award year.
(b) Process overview. The Secretary uses the administrative data
to--
(1) Compile a list of students who completed each program during
the cohort period. The Secretary--
(i) Removes from those lists students who are excluded under Sec.
668.403(e) or Sec. 668.404(c);
(ii) Provides the list to institutions; and
(iii) Allows the institution to correct the information reported by
the institution on which the list was based, no later than 60 days
after the date the Secretary provides the list to the institution;
(2) Obtain from a Federal agency with earnings data the median
annual earnings of the students on each list, as provided in paragraph
(c) of this section; and
(3) Calculate the D/E rates and the earnings premium measure and
provide them to the institution.
(c) Obtaining earnings data. For each list submitted to the Federal
agency with earnings data, the agency returns to the Secretary--
(1) The median annual earnings of the students on the list whom the
Federal agency with earnings data has matched to earnings data, in
aggregate and not in individual form; and
(2) The number, but not the identities, of students on the list
that the Federal agency with earnings data could not match.
(d) Calculating D/E rates and earnings premium measure. (1) If the
Federal agency with earnings data includes reports from records of
earnings on at least 30 students, the Secretary uses the median annual
earnings provided by the Federal agency with earnings data to calculate
the D/E rates and earnings premium measure for each program.
(2) If the Federal agency with earnings data reports that it was
unable to match one or more of the students on the final list, the
Secretary does not include in the calculation of the median loan debt
for D/E rates the same number of students with the highest loan debts
as the number of students whose earnings the Federal agency with
earnings data did not match. For example, if the Federal agency with
earnings data is unable to match three students out of 100 students,
the Secretary orders by amount the debts of the 100 listed students and
excludes from the D/E rates calculation the three largest loan debts.
Sec. 668.406 Determination of the D/E rates and earnings premium
measure.
(a) For each award year for which the Secretary calculates D/E
rates and the earnings premium measure for a program, the Secretary
issues a notice of determination.
(b) The notice of determination informs the institution of the
following:
(1) The D/E rates for each program as determined under Sec.
668.403.
(2) The earnings premium measure for each program as determined
under Sec. 668.404.
(3) The determination by the Secretary of whether each program is
passing or failing, as described in Sec. 668.402, and the consequences
of that determination.
(4) Whether the student acknowledgment is required under Sec.
668.407.
(5) For GE programs, whether the institution is required to provide
the student warning under Sec. 668.605.
(6) For GE programs, whether the program could become ineligible
under subpart S of this part based on its final D/E rates or earnings
premium measure for the next award year for which D/E rates or the
earnings premium measure are calculated for the program.
Sec. 668.407 Student acknowledgments.
(a) Beginning on July 1, 2026, if an eligible program, other than
an undergraduate degree program, has failing D/E rates, the Secretary
notifies the institution under Sec. 668.406(b)(4) that student
acknowledgments are required for such program in the manner specified
in this section.
(b)(1) If student acknowledgements are required, prospective
students must acknowledge that they have viewed the information
provided through the program information website established and
maintained by the Secretary described in Sec. 668.43(d).
(2) The Department will administer and collect the acknowledgment
from
[[Page 70191]]
students through the program information website.
(3) Prospective students must provide such acknowledgments until:
(i) The Secretary notifies the institution pursuant to Sec.
668.406 that the program has passing D/E rates; or
(ii) Three years after the institution was last notified that the
program had failing D/E rates, whichever is earlier.
(c)(1) A prospective student must provide the acknowledgment before
the institution enters into an agreement to enroll the student.
(2) The Secretary monitors the institution's compliance with the
requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this section through audits,
program reviews, or other investigations.
(d) The acknowledgment required in paragraph (c)(1) of this section
does not mitigate the institution's responsibility to provide accurate
information to students concerning program status, nor will it be
considered as dispositive evidence against a student's claim if
applying for a loan discharge.
Sec. 668.408 Reporting requirements.
(a) Data elements. In accordance with procedures established by the
Secretary, an institution offering any group of substantially similar
programs, defined as all programs in the same four-digit CIP code at an
institution, with 30 or more completers in total over the four most
recent award years must report to the Department--
(1) For each GE program and eligible non-GE program, for its most
recently completed award year--
(i) The name, CIP code, credential level, and length of the
program;
(ii) Whether the program is programmatically accredited and, if so,
the name of the accrediting agency;
(iii) Whether the program meets licensure requirements or prepares
students to sit for a licensure examination in a particular occupation
for each State in the institution's metropolitan statistical area;
(iv) The total number of students enrolled in the program during
the most recently completed award year, including both recipients and
non-recipients of title IV, HEA funds; and
(v) Whether the program is a qualifying graduate program whose
students are required to complete postgraduate training programs, as
described in the definition under Sec. 668.2;
(2) For each student--
(i) Information needed to identify the student and the institution;
(ii) The date the student initially enrolled in the program;
(iii) The student's attendance dates and attendance status (e.g.,
enrolled, withdrawn, or completed) in the program during the award
year;
(iv) The student's enrollment status (e.g., full time, three-
quarter time, half time, less than half time) as of the first day of
the student's enrollment in the program;
(v) The student's total annual cost of attendance (COA);
(vi) The total tuition and fees assessed to the student for the
award year;
(vii) The student's residency tuition status by State or district;
(viii) The student's total annual allowance for books, supplies,
and equipment from their COA under HEA section 472;
(ix) The student's total annual allowance for housing and food from
their COA under HEA section 472;
(x) The amount of institutional grants and scholarships disbursed
to the student;
(xi) The amount of other State, Tribal, or private grants disbursed
to the student; and
(xii) The amount of any private education loans disbursed to the
student for enrollment in the program that the institution is, or
should reasonably be, aware of, including private education loans made
by the institution;
(3) If the student completed or withdrew from the program during
the award year--
(i) The date the student completed or withdrew from the program;
(ii) The total amount the student received from private education
loans, as described in Sec. 668.403(d)(1)(ii), for enrollment in the
program that the institution is, or should reasonably be, aware of;
(iii) The total amount of institutional debt, as described in Sec.
668.403(d)(1)(iii), the student owes any party after completing or
withdrawing from the program;
(iv) The total amount of tuition and fees assessed the student for
the student's entire enrollment in the program;
(v) The total amount of the allowances for books, supplies, and
equipment included in the student's title IV, HEA COA for each award
year in which the student was enrolled in the program, or a higher
amount if assessed the student by the institution for such expenses;
and
(vi) The total amount of institutional grants and scholarships
provided for the student's entire enrollment in the program; and
(4) As described in a notice published by the Secretary in the
Federal Register, any other information the Secretary requires the
institution to report.
(b) Initial and annual reporting. (1) Except as provided under
paragraph (c) of this section, an institution must report the
information required under paragraph (a) of this section no later
than--
(i) For programs other than qualifying graduate programs, July 31,
following July 1, 2024, for the second through seventh award years
prior to July 1, 2024;
(ii) For qualifying graduate programs, July 31, following July 1,
2024, for the second through eighth award years prior to July 1, 2024;
and
(iii) For subsequent award years, October 1, following the end of
the award year, unless the Secretary establishes different dates in a
notice published in the Federal Register.
(2) For any award year, if an institution fails to provide all or
some of the information required under paragraph (a) of this section,
the institution must provide to the Secretary an explanation,
acceptable to the Secretary, of why the institution failed to comply
with any of the reporting requirements.
(c) Transitional reporting period and metrics. (1) For the first
six years for which D/E rates and the earnings premium are calculated
under this part, institutions may opt to report the information
required under paragraph (a) of this section for its eligible programs
either--
(i) For the time periods described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii)
of this section; or
(ii) For only the two most recently completed award years.
(2) If an institution provides transitional reporting under
paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the Department will calculate
transitional D/E rates and earnings premium measures using the median
debt for the period reported and the earnings for six years.
Sec. 668.409 Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person,
act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of this part and
subpart, and the application of this subpart's provisions to any other
person, act, or practice, will not be affected thereby.
0
9. Add subpart S to read as follows:
Subpart S--Gainful Employment (GE)
Sec.
668.601 Gainful employment (GE) scope and purpose.
668.602 Gainful employment criteria.
668.603 Ineligible GE programs.
668.604 Certification requirements for GE programs.
668.605 Student warnings.
668.606 Severability.
[[Page 70192]]
Subpart S--Gainful Employment (GE)
Sec. 668.601 Gainful employment (GE) scope and purpose.
(a) General. Except as provided under paragraph (b) of this
section, this subpart applies to an educational program offered by an
eligible institution that prepares students for gainful employment in a
recognized occupation and establishes rules and procedures under which
the Secretary determines that the program is eligible for title IV, HEA
program funds.
(b) Applicability. (1) This subpart does not apply to programs
offered by institutions located in U.S. Territories or freely
associated states.
(2) For each award year that the Secretary calculates D/E rates or
the earnings premium measure under Sec. 668.402, this subpart does not
apply to an institution if, over the most recently completed four award
years, it offered no groups of substantially similar programs, defined
as all programs in the same four-digit CIP code at an institution, with
30 or more completers in total.
Sec. 668.602 Gainful employment criteria.
(a) A GE program provides training that prepares students for
gainful employment in a recognized occupation if the program--
(1) Satisfies the applicable certification requirements in Sec.
668.604;
(2) Is not a failing program under the D/E rates measure in Sec.
668.402 in two out of any three consecutive award years for which the
program's D/E rates are calculated; and
(3) Is not a failing program under the earnings premium measure in
Sec. 668.402 in two out of any three consecutive award years for which
the program's earnings premium measure is calculated.
(b) If the Secretary does not calculate or issue D/E rates for a
program for an award year, the program receives no result under the D/E
rates for that award year and remains in the same status under the D/E
rates as the previous award year.
(c) In determining a program's eligibility, the Secretary
disregards any D/E rates that were calculated more than five
calculation years prior.
(d) If the Secretary does not calculate or issue earnings premium
measures for a program for an award year, the program receives no
result under the earnings premium measure for that award year and
remains in the same status under the earnings premium measure as the
previous award year.
(e) In determining a program's eligibility, the Secretary
disregards any earnings premium that was calculated more than five
years prior.
Sec. 668.603 Ineligible GE programs.
(a) Ineligible programs. If a GE program is a failing program under
the D/E rates measure in Sec. 668.402 in two out of any three
consecutive award years for which the program's D/E rates are
calculated, or the earnings premium measure in Sec. 668.402 in two out
of any three consecutive award years for which the program's earnings
premium measure is calculated, the program is ineligible and its
participation in the title IV, HEA programs ends upon the earliest of--
(1) The issuance of a new Eligibility and Certification Approval
Report that does not include that program;
(2) The completion of a termination action of program eligibility,
if an action is initiated under subpart G of this part; or
(3) A revocation of program eligibility if the institution is
provisionally certified.
(b) Basis for appeal. If the Secretary initiates an action under
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the institution may initiate an
appeal under subpart G of this part if it believes the Secretary erred
in the calculation of the program's D/E rates under Sec. 668.403 or
the earnings premium measure under Sec. 668.404. Institutions may not
dispute a program's ineligibility based upon its D/E rates or the
earnings premium measure except as described in this paragraph (b).
(c) Restrictions--(1) Ineligible program. Except as provided in
Sec. 668.26(d), an institution may not disburse title IV, HEA program
funds to students enrolled in an ineligible program.
(2) Period of ineligibility. An institution may not seek to
reestablish the eligibility of a failing GE program that it
discontinued voluntarily either before or after D/E rates or the
earnings premium measure are issued for that program, or reestablish
the eligibility of a program that is ineligible under the D/E rates or
the earnings premium measure, until three years following the earlier
of the date the program loses eligibility under paragraph (a) of this
section or the date the institution voluntarily discontinued the
failing program.
(3) Restoring eligibility. An ineligible program, or a failing
program that an institution voluntarily discontinues, remains
ineligible until the institution establishes the eligibility of that
program under Sec. 668.604(c).
Sec. 668.604 Certification requirements for GE programs.
(a) Transitional certification for existing programs. (1) Except as
provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, an institution must
provide to the Secretary no later than December 31, 2024, in accordance
with procedures established by the Secretary, a certification signed by
its most senior executive officer that each of its currently eligible
GE programs included on its Eligibility and Certification Approval
Report meets the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section. The
Secretary accepts the certification as an addendum to the institution's
program participation agreement with the Secretary under Sec. 668.14.
(2) If an institution makes the certification in its program
participation agreement pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section
between July 1 and December 31, 2024, it is not required to provide the
transitional certification under this paragraph (a).
(b) Program participation agreement certification.
As a condition of its continued participation in the title IV, HEA
programs, an institution must certify in its program participation
agreement with the Secretary under Sec. 668.14 that each of its
currently eligible GE programs included on its Eligibility and
Certification Approval Report meets the requirements of paragraph (d)
of this section. As provided under 34 CFR 600.21(a)(11)(vi), an
institution must update the certification within 10 days if there are
any changes in the approvals for a program, or other changes for a
program that render an existing certification no longer accurate.
(c) Establishing eligibility and disbursing funds. (1) An
institution establishes a GE program's eligibility for title IV, HEA
program funds by updating the list of the institution's eligible
programs maintained by the Department to include that program, as
provided under 34 CFR 600.21(a)(11)(i). By updating the list of the
institution's eligible programs, the institution affirms that the
program satisfies the certification requirements in paragraph (d) of
this section. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section,
after the institution updates its list of eligible programs, the
institution may disburse title IV, HEA program funds to students
enrolled in that program.
(2) An institution may not update its list of eligible programs to
include a GE program, or a GE program that is substantially similar to
a failing program that the institution voluntarily discontinued or
became ineligible as described in Sec. 668.603(c), that was
[[Page 70193]]
subject to the three-year loss of eligibility under Sec. 668.603(c),
until that three-year period expires.
(d) GE program eligibility certifications. An institution certifies
for each eligible GE program included on its Eligibility and
Certification Approval Report, at the time and in the form specified in
this section, that such program is approved by a recognized accrediting
agency or is otherwise included in the institution's accreditation by
its recognized accrediting agency, or, if the institution is a public
postsecondary vocational institution, the program is approved by a
recognized State agency for the approval of public postsecondary
vocational education in lieu of accreditation.
Sec. 668.605 Student warnings.
(a) Events requiring a warning to students and prospective
students. Beginning on July 1, 2026, the institution must provide a
warning with respect to a GE program to students and prospective
students for any year for which the Secretary notifies an institution
that the GE program could become ineligible under this subpart based on
its final D/E rates or earnings premium measure for the next award year
for which D/E rates or the earnings premium measure are calculated for
the GE program.
(b) Subsequent warning. If a student or prospective student
receives a warning under paragraph (a) of this section with respect to
a GE program, but does not seek to enroll until more than 12 months
after receiving the warning, the institution must again provide the
warning to the student or prospective student, unless, since providing
the initial warning, the program has passed both the D/E rates and
earnings premium measures for the two most recent consecutive award
years in which the metrics were calculated for the program.
(c) Content of warning. The institution must provide in the
warning--
(1) A warning, as specified by the Secretary in a notice published
in the Federal Register, that--
(i) The program has not passed standards established by the U.S.
Department of Education based on the amounts students borrow for
enrollment in the program and their reported earnings, as applicable;
and
(ii) The program could lose access to Federal grants and loans
based on the next calculated program metrics;
(2) The relevant information to access the program information
website maintained by the Secretary described in Sec. 668.43(d);
(3) A statement that the student must acknowledge having viewed the
warning through the program information website before the institution
may disburse any title IV, HEA funds to the student;
(4) A description of the academic and financial options available
to students to continue their education in another program at the
institution, including whether the students could transfer credits
earned in the program to another program at the institution and which
course credits would transfer, in the event that the program loses
eligibility for title IV, HEA program funds;
(5) An indication of whether, in the event that the program loses
eligibility for title IV, HEA program funds, the institution will--
(i) Continue to provide instruction in the program to allow
students to complete the program; and
(ii) Refund the tuition, fees, and other required charges paid to
the institution by, or on behalf of, students for enrollment in the
program; and
(6) An explanation of whether, if the program loses eligibility for
title IV, HEA program funds, the students could transfer credits earned
in the program to another institution in accordance with an established
articulation agreement or teach-out plan or agreement.
(d) Alternative languages. In addition to providing the English-
language warning, the institution must also provide translations of the
English-language student warning for those students and prospective
students who have limited proficiency in English.
(e) Delivery to enrolled students. An institution must provide the
warning required under this section in writing, by hand delivery, mail,
or electronic means, to each student enrolled in the program no later
than 30 days after the date of the Secretary's notice of determination
under Sec. 668.406 and maintain documentation of its efforts to
provide that warning. The warning must be the only substantive content
contained in these written communications.
(f) Delivery to prospective students. (1) An institution must
provide the warning as required under this section to each prospective
student or to each third party acting on behalf of the prospective
student at the first contact about the program between the institution
and the student or the third party acting on behalf of the student by--
(i) Hand-delivering the warning as a separate document to the
prospective student or third party, individually or as part of a group
presentation;
(ii) Sending the warning to the primary email address used by the
institution for communicating with the prospective student or third
party about the program, provided that the warning is the only
substantive content in the email and that the warning is sent by a
different method of delivery if the institution receives a response
that the email could not be delivered; or
(iii) Providing the warning orally to the student or third party if
the contact is by telephone.
(2) An institution may not enroll, register, or enter into a
financial commitment with the prospective student with respect to the
program earlier than three business days after the institution delivers
the warning as described in this paragraph (f).
(g) Acknowledgment prior to enrollment and disbursement. An
institution may not allow a prospective student seeking title IV, HEA
assistance to sign an enrollment agreement, complete registration, or
make a financial commitment to the institution, or disburse title IV,
HEA funds to the student until the student or prospective student
completes the acknowledgment described in paragraph (c)(3) of this
section.
(h) Discharge claims. The provision of a student warning or the
acknowledgment described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section does not
mitigate the institution's responsibility to provide accurate
information to students concerning program status, nor will it be
considered as dispositive evidence against a student's claim if
applying for a loan discharge.
Sec. 668.606 Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person,
act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of this part and
subpart, and the application of this subpart's provisions to any other
person, act, or practice, will not be affected thereby.
[FR Doc. 2023-20385 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P