 

 

 

 

$u

49...?“

05;,

‘t. ‘

ﬁrm: nﬂ»

 

.
2,... w}
.

um .
v

Aﬂo-
.. may

.u
a...

o.

‘.

V ﬁshy.

31 ”till
o r. In” A .
.quﬁahuuﬂ.
.5.

I . . '1'
o Iitpi
.I . 0V.|;I{Hll l-iil‘
‘5; Mylar; Fun 0...... 1
v .. n:A.J§

Ivsnsm LIBRARIES

IIH/I/ll/l/l/ll/I///I///}(Will/ll

memo»: STATE W

(2»?- illlllll Ill/11W

3 1293 01557 6212

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Studying the Effectiveness of the
MI-CASHE Program: Users' Perceptions
of a Financial Aid
Information Search Service

presented by

Margaret Ann LaFleur

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

_D_Q_c_tm:a]_ degree in Wers ity Admin

Major professor

Date 6[/99 / 95'

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-1277!

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE return on or before date due.

 

MTE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

use comm“

STUDYING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE Ml-CASHE PROGRAM:
USERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF A FINANCIAL AID
INFORMATION SEARCH SERVICE

BY

Margaret Ann LaFleur

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1 996

ABSTRACT

STUDYING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MI-CASHE PROGRAM:
USERS' PERCEPTIONS OF A FINANCIAL AID
INFORMATION SEARCH SERVICE
BY

Margaret Ann LaFleur

The purpose of this study was to describe and explain users’ (students’) and
indirect users’ (parents’, high school counselors’, and ﬁnancial aid administrators’)
perceptions of the effectiveness of the MI-CASHE scholarship search service in
terms of the costs and benefits of using the program. Both qualitative and
quantitative research techniques were used to examine and explain the participants’
perceptions of effectiveness regarding use of MI-CASH E. The study was guided by
a conceptual dimension or framework consisting of three main themes and related
subquestions within a case study approach.

Questionnaires were mailed to 780 students who had used Ml-CASHE during
the initial stages of the program, November 1993 through March 1994. A total of
367 students returned their questionnaires, for a 47% return rate. In addition, ten
participants from each of the following groups participated in the telephone
interviews: students, parents, high school counselors, and financial aid

administrators. The director of the Ml-CASHE program unit and the executive

Margaret Ann LaFleur
director of the ofﬁce also were interviewed. Data collected from the questionnaires
were analyzed using a discriminant analysis function, and data collected from the
telephone interviews were analyzed using content analysis.

The findings from the questionnaire indicated that slightly less than one-half
of the student users perceived Ml-CASHE to be effective in terms of costs and
beneﬁts. The indirect users who participated in the telephone interviews indicated
that they would like to hear testimonials from those who were awarded funds as one
way to substantiate the effectiveness of using the MI-CASHE scholarship search
service.

Of the 367 students who returned their surveys and indicated they persisted
through the entire Ml-CASHE application process, nine students reported they
received scholarship awards. Recommendations for more effective use of MI-
CASHE can be found at the conclusion of Chapter V. Finally, the writer considered
what lessons could be learned concerning policy issues surrounding provisions for

access to funding sources for higher education.

DEDICATION

With love, respect, and gratitude, my entire doctoral education is dedicated
to my parents. Jerry A. and Monica R. (Gill) LaFleur. Both were educators who
provided living examples of the importance of learning for beneﬁting oneself and, in
turn, reaching out and applying that knowledge to help others fulﬁll their educational
goals. I will be forever grateful to them for instilling in me the value of education and
for supporting and encouraging me as | pursued my academic endeavors. I thank
God for blessing me with the gift of my parents.

"There is gold and an abundance ofjewels;

But the lips of knowledge are a more precious thing."
(Proverbs 20:15)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is my privilege to recognize and thank the following people for the support
and encouragement they provided for me throughout the various stages of my
doctoral degree program.

First, I would like to thank my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Ann Austin.
Her outstanding scholarly aptitude guided me throughout the dissertation research
study. Ann set high standards and demanded quality work. In every way, she
exempliﬁes professionalism.

Second, I would like to thank the other three faculty members who
participated on my dissertation committee. Dr. Kathryn Moore, Dr. Philip Cusick,
and Dr. Louis Hekhuis offered support and encouragement while Ann guided my
progress. In short, they were wonderful. I could not have asked for a better
foursome.

Finally, I would like to thank a number of colleagues and friends who offered
support in a variety of ways. They are my family—Mom and Dad, Joe, Cathy, Mike,
Jacque, Adam, Nadine, Ann, John, and Julie LaFleur, and my aunt, Margaret Gill;
friends and colleagues-Barbara Tedrow, Martha Fuce, Nancy Danna, Mary Church,
Dr. Joshua Bagakas, Dr. Patricia Enos, Dr. Christine Hammond, Dr. Laurie Wink, M.

Sha Borkowski, Wesley Garner, Dr. Maenette Benham, Dr. Nancy Colﬂesh, Joseph

V

Brocato, Dr. Joanne Basia, Anne Barnard, Walter Appel, Dr. Jacob Silver, Kathy

Collins, Michael Ward, Scott Gordon, and Diane Clark.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................ x
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................... xi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ........................ 1
Introduction .......................................... 1
Description of the Project ............................... 1
Statement of the Problem ............................... 3
Deﬁnition of Terms .................................... 4
Conceptual Dimension of the Study ....................... 5
Summary ........................................... 10
ll. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......................... 12
Attaining Access to Postsecondary Education .............. 12
Bearing the Cost of Higher Education ..................... 15
Sources of Financial Aid ............................... 19
Federal Student Financial Aid Programs ................. 22
State Student Financial Aid Programs ................... 25
Current Status of Both State and Federal Financial
Aid Programs .................................... 27
Public Concern Over Higher Education .................... 29
Difﬁculties Determining the Effects of Student Aid ........... 31
Proposing a New Model for Determining Financial Aid ........ 35
Secondary Approach: Searching for Alternative Sources
of Aid ............................................ 37
Gaining Access to Financial Aid Sources .................. 38
Other Financial Aid Search Services ...................... 39
Surveying the User Population .......................... 42

Illinois Statewide Survey of Parent(s)’ and College-

Bound Students’ Perceptions of Using a Computer-

ized Financial Aid Search Service ..................... 43
Appalachian State University Search Service Study ........ 44

vii

IV.

The University of South Carolina Study .................. 46
What Are the Information Sources of Scholarship Search

. Services? ......................................... 47
The CASHE Program ................................. 48
Summary of the Literature Review ....................... 51
Ml-CASHE AS A CASE STUDY ......................... 53
Design of the Study ................................... 55
Methodology ........................................ 57

Subjects .......................................... 57
Instrumentation .................................... 59
Data Collection ..................................... 61
Variables ......................................... 61
Data Analysis ...................................... 63
Limitations of the Study ................................ 65
Importance of the Study ............................... 67
FINDINGS .......................................... 69
Basic Demographic Descriptions ........................ 71
Findings Pertaining to the Research Questions ............. 74
Research Question 1 ................................ 74
Research Question 2 ................................ 92
Research Question 3 ............................... 100
Summary .......................................... 106

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 109

Summary .......................................... 110
Review of Study Questions and Summary of Findings ....... 112
Issues Raised by the Study ............................ 119
Recommendations for the MI-CASHE Program ............ 125
Recommendations for the Ofﬁce of Student Financial
Assistance ...................................... 126
Recommendations for Student Users of Ml-CASHE ....... 127
Recommendations for Parents Regarding Ml-CASHE ...... 128
Recommendations for High School Counselors Regarding
MI-CASHE ...................................... 128
Recommendations for Financial Aid Administrators
Regarding Ml—CASHE ............................. 129
Recommendations for Policymakers Regarding MI-CASHE . 129
Recommendations for Future Research .................. 130

viii

APPENDICES
A. Frequencies of Responses to Questionnaire Items ......... 132

B. Letter of Approval From the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects .................... 159

C. Information on CASHE—College Aid Sources for Higher
Education Information and Application Materials for
MI-CASHE—Michigan-College Aid Sources for Higher

Education ......................................... 160
D. Cover Letter, Follow-Up Letter, Questionnaire, and

Comments ......................................... 172
E. Cover Letter for Telephone Interviews and Interview

Protocols: Financial Aid Ofﬁcers, High School

Guidance Counselors, and Parents ..................... 186

F. Program Description of MI-CASHE: Michigan-College Aid

. Sources for Higher Education and Supportive Memoranda
Regarding Pilot Study, Rationale for Operating MI-CASHE
and Proposed Boilerplate Amendment, Ml-CASHE Fee
Structure, and Justiﬁcation for Sole Source Contract ........ 201

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................... 211

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Student Information ........................................ 76
Results of the Discriminant Analysis ........................... 79
Student Contacts That Led to Awards .......................... 82
Total Amount of Awards ..................................... 84

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Access to Funding Sources for Postsecondary Education
Opportunities .............................................. 8
2. MI-CASHE: Who Uses It? Who Beneﬁts From It? And How? ........ 9

xi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Introduction

This study focused on higher education policy surrounding ﬁnancial aid to
increase access to postsecondary education. Through a case study approach, the
writer described and explained a ﬁnancial aid resource Iocator system (often known
as a scholarship search service). In addition, the writer examined whether or how
this initiative, Ml-CASHE (Michigan College Aid Sources for Higher Education), was
effective in terms of costs and beneﬁts for those who use it. The study provided a
lens for reviewing the larger picture of access to postsecondary education
opportunities and how higher education policy regarding student ﬁnancial aid could

affect access.

[1.]. [IIE'I

The Michigan Higher Education Assistance Authority, through the Ofﬁce of
Student Financial Assistance, initiated a statewide program to assist students
seeking alternative ﬁnancial aid resources. This program, a computerized ﬁnancial
aid resource Iocator service called Ml-CASHE, Michigan-College Aid Sources for

Higher Education, is a product of National College Services, Ltd. (NCSL). The

2

trademark, MI-CASHE, connotes a partnership between NCSL and a public not-for-
proﬁt entity, the Michigan Higher Education Assistance Authority/Loan Authority
(MHEAA/LA). According to the lease agreement, the database is updated at least
twice a year and will be offered as a public service to Michigan residents at the
nominal fee of $15 per user. User volume is expected to provide the necessary
funds to make Ml-CASHE a self-supported operation. Prospective users, or
applicants, complete a one-page student proﬁle form requesting information
necessary to generate a matching list of potential sources of aid. Applicants receive
a search report containing a list of matches, including names and addresses of
potential funding sources they can contact. It is the applicant’s responsibility to
apply directly to that sponsoring agency. The actual awards are determined by the
individual agencies. The Ofﬁce of Student Financial Assistance does not guarantee
a certain number of matches nor the securing of actual awards (EXHIBIT W,
7/22/93, Michigan Department of Education/MHEAA/LA).

In addition, Ml-CASHE will make provisions in its operation to make the
system available at no cost or nominal cost to needy students (upon individual
requests). It will also assess its cost-effectiveness by surveying users concerning
their use of the Ml-CASHE information and the outcome of their persistence in
following up with potential sources of aid. This is meant to further reinforce Ml-
CASHE’s public service nature and its self-accountability (EXHIBIT W, 7/22/93,

Michigan Department of Education/MHEAA/LA; see Appendix).

3
W

The primary purpose of this case study was to conduct a policy analysis

focused on determining whether the MI-CASHE initiative did what it claims: Was it

effective in providing alternative funding sources for Michigan residents that led to

awards for postsecondary education, thus increasing their (students’) means of

access? The secondary purpose was to consider whether this initiative is worthwhile

in terms of costs and beneﬁts to the users and to the MHEAA/LA, Office of Student

Financial Assistance. Three research questions, with related subquestions, guided

the study:

1. How effective was Ml-CASHE as perceived by students who used it?

1a.

1b.

1c.

1d.

1e.

1f.

What are the proﬁles of the MI-CASHE users? Are there
differences between those who follow through all the steps of
the application process (persisters) and those who do not
follow through the entire process (nonpersisters) in terms of
age, gender, race, grade point average, academic interests,
handicaps or disability, religious preference, parents’
occupation (labeled as professional or nonprofessional),
students’ career objective, area where students live,
citizenship, marital status, enrollment status, users’ year in
school, ACT composite score, and SAT math and verbal
scores?

To what extent do students who persist through the application
process receive funds?

Does use of Ml-CASHE increase awareness of ﬁnancial aid
sources?

To what extent do students who have used MI-CASHE
perceive the program to be effective?

To what extent do direct users (students) perceive MI—CASHE
as worthwhile in terms of costs and beneﬁts?

What are some indicators of client or direct user satisfaction?

4

2. How effective is Ml-CASHE as perceived by indirect users (parents of
users, high school counselor, and college and university ﬁnancial aid
ofﬁcers)?

2a. To what extent do indirect users perceive MI-CASHE as
effective in locating sources of scholarship information?

2b. To what extent do parents of users perceive Ml-CASHE as
worthwhile in terms of costs and beneﬁts?

2c. What are some indicators of indirect user satisfaction?

3. What lessons can be learned from MI-CASHE concerning public
policy issues?

3a. What lessons are learned from this case study concerning
policy issues surrounding provisions for access to funding
sources and higher education?
3b. What are the costs and beneﬁts to the MHEAA/LA in terms of
providing the Ml-CASHE program for the residents of
Michigan?
D f] 'l' [I
For the purposes of this study, the following terms are deﬁned: eﬁemile.
I'l .'|'l .I ﬁ'l 'l ’ 'l and 'l
Eﬂectiye is deﬁned as users’ and indirect users’ perceptions concerning these areas:
(a) the degree of success of MI-CASHE in locating appropriate sources for the
individual to apply for, meaning those sources the individual is eligible to apply for
based on the eligibility criteria designated by the funding sponsor, (b) the degree of
success of Ml-CASHE in students’ persisting and receiving application forms as

responses from the funding sponsor; and (c) the degree of success of Ml-CASHE

in students’ actually receiving a monetary award from the funding sponsor.

5

A diLecLuser is someone, in this study a student, who applies to the MI-
CASHE program, whereas an mm is someone who assists’the direct user
with the Ml-CASHE program. In this study the indirect users are, speciﬁcally,
parents of student users, high school counselors, and college and university ﬁnancial
aid ofﬁcers.

Beneﬁcial is deﬁned as the perceptions of the direct and indirect users
concerning the extent to which the program is a worthwhile expenditure of public
monies. Beneﬁcial can be viewed along a continuum, or degrees, in accordance
with the three areas in which the term ”effective“ is deﬁned.

Eersistence is deﬁned, primarily, as the student's following through the entire
Ml-CASHE application process, and as a student's continuing in school from one
year to the next, resulting in degree completion. Access is deﬁned as gaining
entrance to postsecondary education. Banister is deﬁned as the student, or Ml-
CASHE user, who completes all of the steps in the MI-CASHE application process.
Completing the steps includes ﬁling a Ml-CASHE application, obtaining applications
from the list of MI-CASHE match sources, and ﬁling applications with the matches
or sponsoring agencies. A nmpersister is deﬁned as a student user who does not
complete the application process and/or subsequently does not apply for any

awards.

C | l D' . [ll SI l
The Ml-CASHE initiative is designed as an alternative ﬁnancial aid Iocator

service and is meant to assist students in their search for information about

6

alternative ﬁnancial aid resources. Its purpose is to increase access to
postsecondary education by helping students locate funding sources other than the
well-known or traditional federal and state sources. In focusing on MI-CASHE, this
study is conceptualized as a case study of higher education policy. According to Yin
(1989), "a common topic of case studies is the evaluation of publicly supported
programs, such as federal, state or local programs (p. 37). This case study was
undertaken to evaluate the Ml-CASHE initiative, a state-supported program.
Speciﬁcally, this is a case study to analyze one initiative that could affect state
ﬁnancial aid policy. The particular program initiative, Ml-CASHE, was analyzed to
determine whether it is effective as an intervention in increasing access to funding
sources for postsecondary education and whether it is a cost-effective and beneﬁcial
use of public funds. This case study of MI-CASHE, as an intervention, will be used
to inform the broader issues of providing students with increased access to
opportunities for postsecondary education while minimizing the cost to the state and
maximizing the beneﬁt to those who use Ml-CASHE. That is, the researcher
considered whether Ml-CASHE is a cost-effective route for providing information
about ﬁnancial aid offered by the MHEAA/LA to Michigan residents.
Conceptually, opportunity for access was viewed as one factor, along with
equitable distribution of funds, persistence, choice, and academic qualiﬁcation, that
relates to student degree achievement. Another factor that affects access to the
system of ﬁnancial aid sources is information availability. It is this factor that the MI-

CASHE program seeks primarily to address.

7

As shown in Figure 1, the ﬁrst step to gaining access to ﬁnancial aid, after
initial inquiry, is awareness of information leading to knowledge of the ﬁnancial aid
system. It is awareness of the system that promotes the user’s readiness to work
through or participate in the system on the way to achieving a goal. Upon gaining
awareness, an access route, previously unknown to the user, becomes available.
This route initially features access to traditional state and federal ﬁnancial aid
programs and later offers information on alternative programs, i.e., MI-CASHE. It
is imperative that the student-user be persistent in searching out alternative public
and private funding sources. Following the path in the ﬁgure, persistence will lead
to locating information sources as a result of using Ml-CASHE, which leads to
enrollment in higher education with reenrollment year after year. Vlﬁth continued
persistence, the student-user locates funds and persists through to the ﬁnal goal of
degree completion. This schematic route represents a physical and mental process
for the student who seriously seeks ﬁnancial aid sources. The beginning requires
readiness on the part of the student to enter into the unknown realm of the student
ﬁnancial aid process, to communicate with appropriate sources along the way, and
to persist through each passage until goal achievement, assuming that achievement
is degree completion.

Figure 2 depicts users of Ml-CASHE, both direct and indirect, as well asthose
who potentially could beneﬁt both directly and indirectly. Referring to the ﬁgure, High
School Guidance Counselors (HSGC) and Financial Aid Officers (F in.) represent the

indirect users of Ml-CASHE in that these professionals provide information

.mmacatoaao 8:833 b88838». .8 $0.58 9.65: 2 $68.4 ; 2:9“.

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ \ \
\ .—
\ aw
\ En
mound \ \ mm»
Q Up=m \ \ 3 — 5......
C \ as» 32.2.53
\: \ 3.8-
U—Ev—QE \ \ «33¢ in!
. \ — —
\ \ \ - . is. l
\ \ $39.:
\
\ \u“ 843...!
ms»... “was"...

 

 

— .— —8elael

$6; 2< Q 52.. 35.8 2.3 g 88 23 ”Em/6-..). “N 2:9“.

\ I
I

\
m coca 9850 .
s a \< _, a: .5... a

/ \

 

9:23 695

m _ GEO 00.: C
98385 t m. .u _

whom: 39:2...

 

1O

regarding traditional and alternative sources of ﬁnancial aid. They might even assist
students in completing the Ml-CASHE application process. Potentially, they could
receive indirect beneﬁts as Ml-CASHE could be considered a counseling tool for
both professionals as they assist students in pursuit of postsecondary education
opportunities. Both parents and students are shown as direct users. For parents,
any additional source of funds results in less of a drain on their personal resources

toward paying their students educational costs.

Summary

It is important to keep in mind that the three main purposes of student aid are
the following: to improve opportunities for access to higher education, to provide
students with the opportunity to attend the institution of their choice, and to
encourage students to persist through to degree completion (Leslie 8 Brinkman,
1988). The intention of this study was to determine whether Ml-CASHE has an
effect on persistence as examined through the perceptions of direct and indirect
users regarding its effectiveness. Public policymakers have a role to play in
focusing on student aid programs. Many policymakers have voted to support
provisions for student aid, but debate the amount and types of funds to be made
available and ”whether the individual or society should pay more“ (Leslie 8
Brinkman, 1988, p. 183). Members of the ﬁnancial aid community (i.e., college and
university ﬁnancial aid administrators, and state and federal agents of ﬁnancial
assistance), parents, and students are concerned with whether policymakers are

promoting equal opportunity for students to attend (access) higher education and

11
"thus furthering social mobility of low-income and minority groups“ (Leslie &
Brinkman, 1988, p. 182), along with those who have the ﬁnancial means to afford a
college education.

Using Ml-CASHE to locate information regarding alternate funding sources
is one option students can choose to assist them in their quest for funds to gain
ﬁnancial access to a college education. A number of issues were explored in this
study. One issue is whether students who persist through the entire Ml-CASHE
application process are rewarded with funds; does their persistence pay off? A
second issue is whether students, parents, ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers, and high school
counselors consider Ml-CASHE an effective method to search for information
regarding alternate ﬁnancial aid funds, and whether the student is awarded funds.
Is it worthwhile in terms of the user’s time and money? And, third, to what extent
could the information collected from this study, evaluating Ml-CASHE, provide
policymakers with further insights regarding access to higher education? Would
policymakers consider such strategies as promoting legislation, tax breaks, or
incentives that encourage more businesses, and so on, to sponsor scholarships and
thus increase opportunities for access to higher education? A review of the literature
surrounding the history of ﬁnancial aid, access, choice, and persistence will provide

a perspective for studying these issues.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Ell"? IE! I El l'

Access to postsecondary education is not serendipitous. According to
Bierlein (1993), "Americans have long considered education a top priority. Getting
an education is important to getting ahead and achieving the opportunities life offers.
. . . [It is] an equalizer across economic and social lines” (p. 1). Postsecondary
education is only one component of the relief needed to bridge the growing gap
between poor Americans and the rest of society, and it is a crucial element in the
skills race (National Commission on Responsibilities for Financing Postsecondary
Education, 1993).

Attaining access to a postsecondary education is very much a part of the
traditional American dream. Many Americans still hold fast to their version of the
dream that with access to education follows access to better jobs, higher salaries,
a satisfying quality of life, status, and success.

Recent public opinion polls show that the dream of sending a child to college

—once so important for many parents-is growing more elusive every year.

This is largely because families have increasingly shouldered more of the

burden forﬁnancing higher education asthe federal commitment has eroded.
(Merisotis, 1993, p. xv)

12

13

Bierlein (1993) wrote that ”education continues to be the hope for America’s
ills" (p. 2), whereas Madrid (1991) wrote that "the principaltension in American
society is the tension between the promise of America and the reality of America"
(p. 6). The promise reﬂects one's dreams to accomplish anything one is willing to
work for, whereas the reality is that barriers are increasing and thus preventing those
dreams from coming true. Financial aid programs promising access to
postsecondary education went into full bloom in the mid-19603 with the Higher
Education Authorization Act of 1965. Reality struck as changes in presidential
administrations and the partisan budget cuts that followed eroded ﬁnancial aid
programs and created limited access to postsecondary education. With the
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 1992, new limits were placed on
increases in various programs, one being Pell Grants. Increasingly, ﬁnancially
stretched state budgets contained less money for higher education. The increases
or decreases in student aid programs were reﬂective of the political nature of
whoever was in charge of current state and federal governmental administrations.

Concerns about ever-increasing college costs and decreasing funding
sources were and are the two major factors affecting student access to
postsecondary education. Primarily, the concerns focus on rising costs of college
attendance, i.e., tuition and fees, family ability to pay, and availability of traditional
ﬁnancial aid funding programs, including state, federal, institutional, and private
sources. Concurrent is the political issue of whether public monies are being used

to beneﬁt those in need. Fenske, Huff, and Associates (1983) stated that, ”despite

14

the explosion of student aid during the past decade, young people from low-income
families are still less than half as likely to enroll in college as their counterparts from
high-income families“ (p. 15).

One of the goals of providing student ﬁnancial aid programs is to Increase
both access to postsecondary education and choice of institution. However, this
goal has not entirely been achieved, as Coomes (1988) pointed out:

Federal student aid fundinghas not kept pace with rising costs, and state and

institutional sources of funding have been unable to make up the difference.

Students who rely on ﬁnancial aid to meet college costs may ﬁnd themselves

precluded from attending the nation’s independent colleges and universities.

While they will still ﬁnd it possible to attend lower-cost institutions, the goal of

using student aid to assure choice of educational opportunities may be

seriously threatened. (pp. 176-177)

This threatening situation is what Coomes (1988) referred to as a need-gap»
that is, the difference between the student’s calculated ﬁnancial need and the
student aid resources he or she receives to meet that need. Not only is the need
increasing, it is outpacing inﬂation. This increasing need diminishes opportunities
for 'a growing number of students, and holds the potential to prevent signiﬁcant
numbers of students from attending any postsecondary institution” (Coomes, 1988,
p. 176). Thus, the need gap affects students’ access, choice, and equity.

Access and choice are dependent on a student’s ability to pay for
postsecondary education. Not to be forgotten is that the student’s academic
achievement has an effect on access, as well as on the choice of institution the

student desires to attend. Those students who have both monies and academic

qualiﬁcations have access to postsecondary education. Those students who are

15
lacking in one or both will not have the same opportunities for access as others who
have one or both.

How does a student gain access to postsecondary education? First, the
student must have knowledge of the system in order to gain access to the system.
Academic standards must be met. Financial resources must be available. Once
those two factors have been reconciled, it is up to the student to persist, semester
to semester, until degree completion. Without the completed degree, there will not
be the potential for equality across economic and social lines, as Bierlein (1993)
contended. That is, educational opportunities decrease, socioeconomic class can
diminish, and the opportunity for social and economic equality and improving one’s
quality of life becomes harder to achieve. In light of this, the promise of the

American dream starts to fade.

B . || Clill'l El l'

According to the fall 1992 survey of American college freshmen conducted
by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA, concerns about ﬁnancing a
college education were prevalent and had risen since 1966, the ﬁrst year of the
survey. In 1966, 8.6% of those surveyed reported major concerns about ﬁnancing
their education. A similar question asked in 1992 indicated that "17.4 percent of all
ﬁrst-time, full-time college freshmen reported that ﬁnancing their college education

was a major concern. This was the largest proportion on record" (Mortenson, 1993,

p. 2).

16
In the ﬁnal report of the National Commission on Responsibilities for
Financing Postsecondary Education (WW, 1993), the
Commission concluded:

- Paying for college now ranks as one of the most costly investments for
American families, second only to buying a home;

- During the 19805, the cost of attending college increased 126 percent, twice
the rate of inﬂation for the decade;

- State budget cuts are causing sizable tuition increases at public institutions,
increases that have outpaced those in the traditionally higher-priced private
institutions. (p. xv)

In another example, the College Board (1990-91) projected the rising costs
of a college education for the 1990-91 school year, based on a 6% average annual
rate of inﬂation applied to the total expenses of college attendance. The cost for
attending a four-year public college was $4,970 and $13,544 for attending a four-
year private college. At this rate, a child born in 1991, entering college 17 years
hence, can expect to pay $58,546 for four years at a public college and $159,546
for four years at a private college. A 15-year-old youth, projecting costs in 1990-91,
attending college in 1993—94, could expect to pay $25,895 for a public school
education and $70,567 for a private school education over four years.

Who should be expected to bear the cost of higher education? Public and
private institutions alike depend on tuition, and most depend on government
allocations. ”Student ﬁnancial aid controls the balance between the public and A

private sectors of higher education. For a large proportion--perhaps even a majority

—-of private colleges, it determines their viability” (Fenske et al., 1983, p. 13). Private

17

colleges depend more on tuition and fees for their existence. Some have built
substantial endowments and continue to run development campaigns to fuel the
endowment ﬁre. Public institutions, too, conduct major giving campaigns or capital
campaigns to enhance their ﬁnancial portfolios. Families have increasingly taken on
the bUrden of ﬁnancing higher education, and it is the philosophy of the student
ﬁnancial aid professionals that the burden should fall on the family. State and
federal government resources are to provide assistance to the major family
contribution. Parents who send their children to private colleges are aware of the
higher cost and know they could have chosen a less costly public institution.
Because they had ﬁnancial resources, they also had more options when choosing
their point of access.

According to Hansen (1991),

Between 1980-81 and 1989-90, the two largest federal programs aiding

undergraduates (Pell Grants and guaranteed loans) grew by roughly 85

percent, whereas cost increases in public and private four-year colleges and

universities went up from 100 to 134 percent. These facts suggested that the
burden of postsecondary expenses was shifting back toward families,

especially students. (p. 22)

If, ”as our forefathers believed, education is fundamental to the preservation
of a democratic society” (Bierlein, 1993, p. 1), then how will American citizens
attempt to preserve the American democratic society when access to higher
education is becoming increasingly more difﬁcult? Since 1980, less aid, in general,
has been available and more loan aid than grant aid has been available. According

to Gladieux (cited in Urahn, 1988), instead of making access to education a moral

imperative and supporting it with grant aid, young people have been told, ifyou want

18
an education, here’s a loan, pay for it yourself (Marchese, cited in Urahn, 1988). If
not the young person, then who should pay?(Urahn, 1988).

Attitudes, beliefs, and values inﬂuence students’ and parents’ decision-
making regarding how to pay for postsecondary education. Whether a student
works while attending college, undertakes a loan, has familial assistance, or
receives gift aid will affect the decision whether and where to go to college. Orahn
(1988) wrote,

The actual aid students are offered or receive is less critical than student and

family attitudes toward borrowing to ﬁnance higher education. If some

students are less willing to borrow for higher education, those attitudes may
put their chances of receiving a college education at increasing risk as loans

become the primary source of extra-familial postsecondary support. (p. 2)
Fenske et al. (1983) stated, ”Student ﬁnancial aid is now the main determinant of
participation rates in higher education, and higher education is the main determinant
of economic status” (p. 13).

According to Urahn (1988), ”although unswerving public faith in the value of
higher education has been tempered in recent years, most parents, regardless of
education, occupation or income, want their children to go to college” (p. 3). There
exists a belief in the value of education. This belief translates into a goal to be
achieved. Pfeffer (cited in Abrahamsson, 1993) postulated that

people undertake actions to achieve their goals. People act purposefully to

fulﬁll their needs orto overcome need deﬁciencies. People undertake actions

according to the probability that those actions will lead to some instrumentally

valued outcome. And, individual action is motivated to achieve some desired
outcome such as more resources, promotion or additional power. (p. 20)

19
Thus, if a student values or desires access to postsecondary education, than the
student will undertake the necessary actions to sustain the value and satisfy the
desire. However, many students will face barriers and feel thwarted in their attempt

to access postsecondary education opportunities, their goals notwithstanding;

The search for student ﬁnancial aid continues to outpace the available
sources of ﬁnancial aid. Simultaneously, uncited sources stated that "$6.6 billion in
student aid remain unclaimed each year.“ In fact, that statement was taken out of
context and used by some private computerized search services as a way to grab
the public’s attention, saying to them, ”We’ll help you claim some of that $6.6 billion.”
Enticing and misleading, that elusive statement provokes confusion for those
seeking aid, as well as for those administering aid. In actuality, what that often-cited
$6.6 billion amount referred to were ﬁndings from a 1982 study by the National
Commission on Student Financial Assistance. The Commission found that
'education beneﬁts provided by employers for their employees are widely available,
but that some $6.6 billion of that aid had gone unused each year“ (Hook, 1983, p.
20). In truth, many companies have cut back on employees’ education beneﬁts.
This employer-funding source is separate from other private scholarship dollars
available for students. Citing that $6.6 billion ﬁgure, with no date attached, nor with
any explanation about the unclaimed billions, has caused confusion for the general

public.

20

For most people, ﬁnancial aid connotes the traditional programs (i.e., grants,
scholarships, fellowships, internships, work study, and loans). As stated earlier in
this review, loans have increasingly become the most available and least favorable
form of student ﬁnancial aid. ”Public policy makers are concerned about this trend
and the possible adverse effects of rising student indebtedness on education equity
and graduates’ career choices" (Knapp, 1992, p. 1).

Contrary to the media display that students were becoming overburdened by
loan debts are the results of a report commissioned by the Joint Committee of the
Congress, in which Hansen (1992) found that there was a ”paucity of data with which
to assess concerns about overborrowing” (p. 23). The report also stated that “data
and studies on the impact of student borrowing were few, fragmentary, and
frequently out—of-date and/or contradictory. It pointed to a pressing need for better
data and research on student borrowing to help separate valid from invalid concerns
about high borrowing levels“ (Hansen, 1992, p.23). According to a report released
In 1992 by the Congressional Budget Office, the average debt of all undergraduates
who received loans in 1989-90 was $4,900. The average debt of undergraduates
at public four-year institutions was $5,064, and the average debt of undergraduates
at independent four-year institutions was $7,722. Students attending public two-
year schools had the lowest average debt (American Council on Education, 1992,
p. 3). The fact that this report was undertaken demonstrates that others agree with
Hansen that loan data need to be collected. The next step is to give this information

to the media in hopes that it will reach policymakers and the general public.

21

According to the College Entrance Examination Board report. Itendan
W199} (Gladieux, Knapp, & Merchant, 1993), the total available
student aid in 19929-93 was $34.6 billion. After adjusting for inﬂation, this amount
was 41% higher than a decade ago and 5% higher than in 1991-92 (p. 3). During
academic year 1992-93, the federal government provided 74% of available student
aid. Ten years ago, the federal share was more than 80%. Institutional and other
grants have grown from 13% to 20% of the total over this same period, with state
grants remaining steady at 6% (p. 3). The single largest source of aid in 1992-93
was the Federal Family Education Loans Program (FFELP, formerly Guaranteed
Student Loans). The FF ELP group includes Stafford Loans, Supplemental Loans
for Students (SLS), and Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS). This
program provided $15 billion in aid to students, 43% of all available aid.

Whereas college costs continue to increase and federal funding is
decreasing, access to higher education also is decreasing. Thus, families (parents
and/or students) will continue to bearthe burden of college costs, and those who are
ﬁnancially able are encouraged to do so (Hansen, cited in Merisotis, 1991 ). Vlﬁll the
19908 parallel the 1950s in terms of a “talent loss" to the nation? That is, will ”poor
but academically talented students be unable to pursue schooling for ﬁnancial
reasons”? (Hansen, cited in Merisotis, 1991). In 1995, a budget resolution was
presented to the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee and the House
Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, instructing the members to out

$10 billion from student loan funding over seven years. In response, Terry Hartle,

22
American Council on Education Vice-President, stated, “Every dime comes out of
students' hides” (American Council on Education, 1995, p. 5). Not only have funds
for gift aid (grants and scholarships) been cut, but loan programs are also on the

chopping block awaiting their funding fate.

E | IS! I IE' 'IE'IE

From McPherson’s (cited in Merisotis, 1991) perspective,

federal aid has three major purposes: (1) equalizing educational

opportunities (which is the rationale for creation of most federal student aid

programs, (2) making the sharing of higher education costs and beneﬁts
fairer, and (3) helping higher education institutions work better by making

them ﬁnancially more secure. (p. 13)

Hansen (cited in Merisotis, 1991) added a cautionary note, stating that ”one
consequence of the evolutionary development of federal student aid is that its goals
and intended beneﬁciaries are murky” (p. 13). Federal student aid programs are
often political in nature rather than reﬂecting an understanding of the issue of equity
in access to higher education opportunities.

The ﬁrst sizable program of federal student aid was titled the National Youth
Administration (NYA, 1943-1953). This program was motivated by a noneduca-
tional policy issue. Its purpose was to provide work during the Depression, rather
than to provide direct aid to institutions or students. During this period, the
government expended more than $93 million and employed 620,000 students
(Brubacher & Rudy, cited in Coomes, 1988).

Probably one of the best-known sources of student ﬁnancial aid was the

Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, more commonly known as the GI Bill. This

23

piece of legislation was enacted as a way to reward veterans of the Second World
War and the Korean War for serving their country. It was also a way to ease the
burden on a fragile economy as the returning veterans would substantially increase
the number of employable men in the United States. Money was made available for
college or job training, as well as for home loans to ex-Gls. The GI Bill has been
compared to Social Security as the most signiﬁcant social legislation in US. history,
and is considered the ﬁrst broad-based student aid legislation enacted by the federal
government (Rivlin, cited in Coomes, 1988).

The GI Bill had far-reaching effects socially and economically on higher
education, employment, and the housing market. Higher education was spiraling
toward its heyday in the 19508, 19603, and 19703, when money was available to
expand educational opportunities as well as institutional physical plants. No other
piece of ﬁnancial aid legislation had an effect as far reaching as the GI Bill.

The 1957 launching of the Sputnik satellite spurred U.S. leaders into action
to improve scientiﬁc and technical education. Thus, in 1958, Congress passed the
National Defense Education Act (N DEA). The focus of the act was a student loan
program for students planning teaching careers or pursuing programs in science,
mathematics, or modern foreign languages (Conlan, cited in Coomes, 1988). The
NDEA reemphasized the nation’s interest in the quality of education at the state and
local levels (King, cited in Coomes, 1988) and prompted the government to
guarantee the opportunity for education (Conlan, cited in Coomes, 1988). This effort

also established the precedent for making students and not institutions the primary

24

beneﬁciaries of federal education funds (Coomes, 1988). The NDEA later became
known as the Perkins Loans, named for congressman Carl D. Perkins (Hansen,
1991).

In 1965 Congress enacted the Higher Education Act (H EA). Establishing the
HEA was a result of increasing concern for the welfare of the underprivileged. This
was in conjunction with President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty and broad
assault on social problems (Hansen, 1991). The War on Poverty was based on the
philosophy that the federal government had a responsibility to provide for the
"neediest” citizens. As a result of the HEA, the Supplemental Education Opportunity
Grant (SEOG) and the Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL) were created.
Concomitantly, the student work-study program was transferred from the Ofﬁce of
Economic Opportunity to the Department of Education (Moore, cited in Coomes,
1988). The work-study program was meant to subsidize employment for ﬁnancially
needy college students. Middle-income students were meant to beneﬁt from the
GSL. Although they might not be the most ﬁnancially needy, they might want some
ﬁnancial assistance to help ease the burden during their college years (Hansen,
cited in Merisotis, 1991). According to Gladieux (cited in Fenske & Huff, 1983), the
HEA represented the ﬁrst explicit commitment to equalizing postsecondary
opportunities for needy students by providing grants and other programs designed
to facilitate access for the college-able poor.

Many other federal ﬁnancial aid programs have been developed since those

early days. One of these, the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant of 1972,

25

expressed the govemment’s commitment to provide access to postsecondary
opportunities for all students (Gladieux & Wolanin,'cited in Coomes, 1988). The
Middle Income Student Assistance Act of 1978 was meant to assist children of
middle-class families. The Education Amendments of 1980 created a new loan
program, the Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS). Following the
Education Amendments of 1980 were the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1981 and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deﬁcit Control Act of 1985. These
pieces of legislation were concerned with the increasing costs of federal student aid
and looked for ways to reduce the costs. The Education Amendments of 1986
attempted to reﬁne the aid system but did not develop new programs (Coomes,
1988)

Current (1994-95) majorfederal student aid programs consist ofthe following:
Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, Work-Study, Perkins
Loans, Stafford Loans, Parent Loansfor Undergraduate Students and Direct Student
Loans, Paul Douglas Teacher Scholarship, and Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship
Programs (Iheﬁjudemﬁujde, 1994-95). Additional programs include veterans’
education programs, health professions programs under the Department of Health
and Human Services, and the National Science Foundation Fellowships, among

others.

Sll SI I IE' 'IE'IE

States also have been involved in developing and instituting student ﬁnancial

aid programs. They include direct state aid in the form of scholarships, student

26
employment programs, and loans. Since the late 1970s, states have increased their
participation in the Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL) and the Parent Loans for
Undergraduate Students (PLUS). Their participation takes three forms:

(1) states that function as the guarantor through existing agendas or state

chartered corporations; (2) states that assign all operational responsibility to

a non-proﬁt corporation like United States Aid Funds of New York City

(USAF); or (3) states that establish their own guarantee agency but contract

with non-proﬁt organizations for loan servicing. (Johnson, cited in Coomes,

1988, p. 158)

Currently, the State of Michigan offers several programs for students. They
are: the Michigan Competitive Scholarship (current maximum award: $1,200); the
Michigan Tuition Grant (for those enrolling at private schools only, current maximum
award: $1,975); the Paul Douglas Teacher Scholarship (current maximum award:
$5,000); Ml-LOAN (current minimum and maximum awards based on time period
and ﬁxed and variable interest rates); Michigan Campus-Based Programs, i.e., Adult
Part-Time Grant, Michigan Educational Opportunity Grant, and Michigan Work-Study
(campus-based programs are administered by the individual college’s ﬁnancial aid
ofﬁce); assistance through Veterans Affairs, Vocational Rehabilitation, and Tuition
Incentive Program (TIP) (provides tuition and mandatory fee assistance for students
of lower-income families for current and previous year); Bureau of Indian Affairs (for
students who are of Native American descent); and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational
Education, Single Parent/Homemaker, and Sex Equity Program (assists Michigan
community college and State Board of Education-approved four-year and two-year

institutions offering two-year degrees in occupational education with tuition-free

occupational education and support services for single parents, single pregnant

27
women, displaced homemakers, and sex-equity students attending colleges and

universities). Speciﬁc eligibility requirements accompany each of these.

WEE]
SI l IE' 'IE'IE

As of the end of summer 1995 and the beginning of fall 1995, many funding
changes had been proposed for both state and federal student ﬁnancial aid
programs. The following information was published in the MSEAANBAMSIIDQ, the
ofﬁcial publication of the Michigan Student Financial Aid Association, in August 1995
(Bob, 1995). According to that publication, Congressional staff documents reﬂected
a $10.4 billion savings target for student loan programs. That savings would be
made up of the elimination of the in-school interest subsidy for graduate and
professional students, an increase in student loan origination fees from 4% to 4.5%,
the elimination of the $10 administrative fee paid by the Department of Education to
direct loan schools per loan, and elimination of the scheduled interest rate decrease
that was to take effect July 1, 1988. Also assumed was the imposition of state risk-
sharing obligations on direct loan schools (Bob, 1995).

The report continued by stating that the House Appropriations Subcommittee
panel voted to raise the Pell Grant maximum award by $100 to $2,400, but also to
decrease overall Pell Grant funding from $6.1 billion for ﬁscal year 1995 to
approximately $5.7 billion. An article in the ChmniclﬂttﬁgheLEducaﬂgn (Burd,
1995) conﬁrmed the Pell funding amounts and added that the increase would be

paid for by reducing the total number of grants to be awarded. "University ﬁnancial

28

aid ofﬁcers estimate(d) that the reduction would eliminate at least 250,000 students
from the program. Generally, a student whose family earns $25,000 or more would
no longer be eligible for a Pell Grant under this plan" (Burd, 1995, p. A33). The
MSFAA report stated that campus-based programs had not been subjected to such
severe cuts, with continued funding for Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity
Grants (FSEOG) and the Federal Work-Study (FWS) Program recommended at
ﬁscal year 1995 levels. The Federal Perkins Loan Program funds were in jeopardy
of not receiving new funding, and the State Student Incentive Grants were facing
elimination (Bob, 1995).

As of August 1995, the Paul Douglas Teacher Scholarship (PDTS), which
was funded by federal dollars to the states to administer, did not receive renewed
funding, so no scholarships were awarded for the 1995-96 academic year. This
scholarship has been renewable, but without new funding there would be no
renewals, either. However, student recipients of the PDTS were required to teach
two years for every year of funding they received. The law required the states to
track the recipients for up to ten years to make sure they fulﬁlled their teaching
requirement or else reimburse the state forthe funding amount. The legislature has
to decide whether or how to enforce the requirement.

The federally funded Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program was slated
to receive some funding. This program could be cut within the current (September

1995) rescissions bill before Congress.

29

Finally, the Indian Tuition Waiver Program in Michigan was slated for
immediate elimination. However, the governor of Michigan agreed to allow its
continuance for the 1995-96 school year. The issues at stake were that students
had already been admitted to school, and they had not planned for other resources
to fund their education. Michigan college and university ofﬁcials were concerned
about repayment as the state’s practice was to make tuition reimbursements to the
institutions at the end of each academic year rather than at the beginning, and they
feared losing the reimbursements. (Information regarding the ITWP was obtained
from the Michigan Ofﬁce of Student Financial Assistance, August 1995.)

The status of student ﬁnancial aid is not yet settled for the upcoming ﬁscal
year. As the arena of student ﬁnancial aid remains complex, subject to budget cuts
and political bargaining, it is important to keep in touch with funding cycles and
decisions. Once the budget for this ﬁscal year is settled, funding for student ﬁnancial
aid will be ﬁxed until the following budget cycle, when the costs and benefrts of

higher education will be debated again.

Ell' C 0 III El l'

Approximately two years ago, in September 1993, the California Higher
Education Policy Center (CHEPC) surveyed 832 California residents and 502
residents of the continental United States to gain a glimpse of the public’s views on
higher education. Their ﬁndings indicated public concern that higher education is
becoming indispensable, yet increasingly out of reach. More than half of

Californians and Americans surveyed believed that many qualiﬁed students are

30

currently unable to get a college education in their home state. According to the
report, ”there is nearly universal agreement among Americans that a college
education is an important gateway to a good job. Nearly eight out of ten Americans
are convinced that high school graduates should go to college because in the long
run they will have better job prospects” (lmmerwahr 8 Farkas, 1993, p. 19). The
report also indicated that a majority of Americans (54%) believed that higher
education needs to be overhauled; that it is becoming less available, less affordable,
and more important to the future of many Americans; and that people throughout the
nation think that a qualiﬁed and motivated student should not be prevented from
getting a college education.

Belief in the value of postsecondary education notwithstanding, policy
contributions acknowledge that a student, as the primary beneﬁciary of
postsecondary education, should bear the primary responsibility for his or her
educational expenses (Heam 8 Anderson, 1989). Many people subscribe to the
idea that ifcollege graduates face debt burden, they have time to work it off. On the
other hand, if their parents become saddled with loan debts, the parents will have
a harder time paying them off as they face decreasing availability of funds in
retirement. Many students combine working with taking out loans in order to
shoulder their educational costs. As these students look to the state and federal
government for additional ﬁnancial assistance, many wonder what the limits should
be. Many people believe that public policy initiatives such as the 'federal

government investing in student ﬁnancial aid must continue to be the largest

31
initiative, promoting access, choice and equity by direct student ﬁnancing of higher
education” (Flint, 1992, p. 704).

What should the role of federal policy be? Ehrenberg and Murphy (1993)
afﬁrmed, “First and foremost, federal policy should aim at providing access to high
quality education for all qualiﬁed students' (p. 73). Second, allowing tuition
increases at public institutions assists in reducing state subsidies while providing
institutional resources for need-based grant aid. The result of declining state funding
is that public institutions have raised tuition to make up for a loss in revenues to
meet the ever-increasing operational costs, and it is assumed that students and
families will ﬁnd the resources to pay the increasing share of the cost of higher

educaﬁon.

D'fﬁ II' D! .. ll Eff! [Sll IE'I

“Determining the actual effects of student aid is a formidable task,“ wrote
Leslie and Brinkman (1988, p. 136). Researchers have cited data-collection
problems, complexities of human behavior, and the difﬁculties of isolating the effects
of student aid from many other inﬂuences, as well as the difﬁculties encountered
when deciphering the student ﬁnancial aid system, programs, and policies.

Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 authorized federal student
aid programs intended to promote equal educational opportunity. Since that time,
doubts have been raised about the effectiveness of student aid (Hansen, cited in St.
John, 1992). Study results have varied. Studies that used the National Longitudinal

Study of the High School Class of 1972 (NSL-72) (e.g., Jackson, cited in St. John,

32
1992; Manski 8 Wise, cited in St. John, 1992), which were considered to have
appropriate statistical controls, consistently found that student aid had a positive
effect on attendance (Leslie 8 Brinkman, 1988; St. John, Byce, 8 Norris, cited in St.
John,1992)

Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) reviewed the literature on receiving or not
receiving ﬁnancial aid and its potential effect on persistence and attaining a
bachelor’s degree, and concluded that the results were mixed. They reported that
some types of aid may be more beneﬁcial than others. Pascarella and Terenzini
(1991) cited Murdock (1988) for conducting further quantitative synthesis of the
inﬂuence of various types of ﬁnancial aid on persistence. They wrote,

Murdock compared each individual form of ﬁnancial aid (grants, loans,

scholarships, and work-study programs) against the combined effect of all

others. The only consistently signiﬁcant effect size was for scholarships (.14
of a standard deviation), indicating that scholarships were signiﬁcantly (if only
modestly) more effective than a composite of other forms of aid in promoting

persistence. (p. 406)

Astin (cited In Pascarella 8 Terenzini, 1991), among others, suggested that
scholarships and grants had a more positive effect on persistence than did loans,
even when other variables were taken into account.

The results of studies on the effect of ﬁnancial aid on persistence are
confusing because of the mixed results of the studies. For example, Fetters (cited
in Ramist, 1981) analyzed the National Longitudinal Study data from 1972 using a
log-linear model and concluded that "ﬁnancial aid was a signiﬁcant variable in

relation to withdrawal from the four-year college, particularly for students with low

income and high aspirations." Fetters, along with Peng (cited in Ramist, 1981),

33

reviewed the same data using a multiple regression model. They concluded that
"neither scholarships nor loans have a signiﬁcant relationship to college withdrawal
in either the four-year or two-year institutions” (p. 15). Astin (cited in Ramist, 1981)
found conﬂicting results in his studies of the effects of grants and scholarships on
persistence. He ﬁrst found that receiving grants or scholarships increased chances
of persistence. However, in 1975, Astin determined that ”they had very little effect”
(p. 15).

As Astin (cited in Ramist, 1981) continued his studies, he also found that, for
men, the effect of loans was actually negative; “a freshman male increases his
freshman year dropout rate by six percentage points by receiving a loan“ (p. 15).
Regarding federal work-study, Astin concluded that work-study programs

enhance persistence, particularly among blacks and students from middle-

income families; personal savings are not signiﬁcantly related to persistence;

GI beneﬁts had a negative impact on persistence; ROTC beneﬁts had a very

positive effect on persistence; and most ﬁnancial aid packages appear(ed)

to have a negative effect on persistence but that either a work-study

opportunity or a grant would be superior to both. (Ramist, 1981, pp. 15—16)

The aforementioned studies regarding the effects of student ﬁnancial aid on
persistence are the best known and most quoted. In 1989, Murdock conducted a
meta-analysis of those studies addressing the primary research question: ”Does
ﬁnancial aid promote student persistence in higher education?" (p. 4). The study
revealed the following ﬁndings regarding the effect of ﬁnancial aid:

1. Assuming that ﬁnancial aid is targeted on the lower-income student,

ﬁnancial aid is achieving the objective of equal educational opportunity

by enabling the lower-income student to persist at a level almost equal
to that of middle- and upper-income students.

34

2. Financial aid does promote persistence among minority groups, but
minority groups continue to persist at lower rates than nonminority
recipients.

3. The dollar amount of ﬁnancial aid has a signiﬁcantly positive effect on

student persistence.

4. Financial aid has a stronger effect on persistence of two-year students
than four-year students. One factor that may account for this ﬁnding
is the larger proportion of minority and low SES students attending
two-year colleges.

5. Financial aid appears to have a stronger effect on persistence during
the latter years of college than on the freshman year. Persistence
literature consistently reports that the highest rate of attrition occurs in
the freshman year.

6. Financial aid appears to have a stronger effect on persistence of
private institution students than public institution students.

7. The meta-analysis showed that studies which included part-time
students have a lower average effect size than studies that measured
only full-time student persistence. This ﬁnding implies that ﬁnancial
aid has a greater effect on full-time students than on part-time
students. Of course, part-time students are considerably less likely to
be eligible for aid. Further, they receive small aid awards.

8. When comparing different forms of ﬁnancial aid, grants, scholarships,
and the grant and loan combination have a greater positive effect than
do loans. However, the study results on persistence are confounded
by the inﬂuence of dollar amount and the lack of control for academic
ability. (pp. 1011)

Financial aid ﬁrst affects access to higher education. Once access is gained,
ﬁnancial aid then has the ability to affect persistence, and persistence is vital to
retention and degree completion. if higher education is intended to improve student
retention efforts, then the effect of ﬁnancial aid cannot be forgotten. It has been

shown thatﬁnancial aid can be an important equalizer for access at the entry phase,

but as the amount and availability of aid decreases throughout the remaining years

35
of undergraduate degree work, persistence and eventually retention can decrease.
' Therefore, to promote student persistence, retention efforts must be kept in mind
along with the availability of ﬁnancial aid for students, not just for recruiting entering

freshmen but for students throughout their college careers.

E . ll IIIIEDI .. E' 'II'I

In the early 19903, college and university executive administrators began
debating the implementation of a new model for determining student aid. The high
tuition/high ﬁnancial aid model has been suggested as a replacement for the current
low-tuition model, which is seemingly out of sync with today’s social and economic
conditions and ”has become incompatible with today’s realities of providing student
affordability and maintaining institutional quality" (Wallace, 1993, p. 59). The model
proposes that afﬂuent students subsidize middle- and low-income students. Tuition
at public institutions would be raised to approximate the actual cost of instruction,
and tuition paid by high-income students would be used to subsidize tuition paid by
low-income students. According to Wallace (1993), President of Illinois State
University,

The impact in many states of regressive state tax structures results in high-

income families having access to the highest quality higher education

provided in the state at tuition rates far below full cost, subsidized by low-

income families and non-users of higher education. (p. 58)

Opponents have argued that Wallace’s proposed policy would have

disastrous consequences for public higher education. In addition, opponents have

stated that this policy would not increase access but would force low-income

36
students to attend low-tuition institutions, creating a system of forced choice.
Wallace (1993) contended that, in order to achieve eqUitabIe access and maintain
choice, ﬁscal policies must be changed. He stated that ”the policy objective should
be to enable all students, regardless of family income, the choice to attend a four-
year university full-time without excessive part-time employment or excessive
student debt" (p. 60).

Another potential effect of this model is that high-income families could be
driven away from public institutions. If the price of tuition is increased to
approximate the actual cost of instruction, there would be less difference between
the cost of public and private instruction. Those who could afford the price
differential, but who would otherwise have attended a public college or university,
might instead attend a private institution and, therefore, still maintain their options
for access and choice.

Wallace (1993) charged that public higher education is experiencing serious
ﬁnancial concerns and that legislatures have not been responsive in dealing with
those concerns. “The failure of state legislatures to provide a large enough subsidy
to make public higher education affordable to all has irreversibly doomed the low-
tuition philosophy“ (p. 60). And the fact remains that insufﬁcient sources of revenue
exist and encourage revisiting the “high tuition/high aid” strategy. The containment
of operating costs and organizational realignment remain at the forefront for the

attention of institutional leaders and planners.

37

In "Making College Affordable Again,” the National Commission on
Responsibilities for Financing Postsecondary Education (1993) recognized that'the
most productive step the federal government can take in strengthening the
postsecondary education ﬁnancing partnership is to lead by example” (p. xvi). The
Commission afﬁrmed that the federal government must take the responsibility to
build the foundation for "a new national compact that will improve the affordability of
higher education for all Americans” (p. xvi). In this compact, the "federal government
will recapture the national leadership it once held in this area” (p. xvi).

S I E l _ S I . f ill I'
Win

Ml-CASHE, the focus of this case study, does not ﬁt into any of the traditional
programs debated by state or federal policymakers. Rather, it is an information
source for alternate student ﬁnancial aid and thus represents a very small portion of
the ﬁnancial aid picture. Therefore, it does not affect the issues of access, choice,
and equity as the other traditional types of ﬁnancial aid do. Due to advances in
technology, the existence of a national database such as Ml-CASHE seems to be
" a natural outcome of the search for alternative methods of gathering ﬁnancial aid
information. A service such as Ml-CASHE has appeal for students, parents, high
school counselors, and ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers as it is a more time-efﬁcient way to

continue searching for funds.

38
ENE IE' 'IE'IS

The issue of how to gain access to private funds is not new. Gaining access
to the information is preliminary to gaining access to the system and to accessing
the funding sources. Before the use of technology, ﬁnancial aid directories as
compiled sources had been available for more than 20 years. The information is
subdivided to narrow the focus of the student’s search and make it easier to locate
funding sources. For example, there are directories devoting sources to women,
minorities, graduate fellowships, or to a speciﬁc academic subject.

Increased technology allows the same and/or similar information found in the
directories to be available in database forms. Ml-CASHE, or any computerized
ﬁnancial aid resource Iocator system, is a way to access the sources more quickly.
The program matches the user’s background characteristics with the funding
source’s eligibility criteria, saving the usertime searching through a written directory.
Presuming the information is updated regularly, Ml-CASHE claims to offer a list of
sources that would otherwise be difﬁcult for the general public to access.

It is this difﬁculty in locating private sources of scholarship aid that causes
concern for parents, students, high school counselors, and ﬁnancial aid
administrators. Locating sources of private aid is not only difﬁcult but complex and
becomes a barrier to accessing higher education opportunities, especially for those
who are considered at-risk students (US. Congress, 1991). The report of the
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance (US. Congress, 1991) stated

that student aid programs were not sufficient to ensure access, speciﬁcally equitable

39
access, to postsecondary education opportunities. This claim notwithstanding, in
1993 the National Commission on Responsibilities for Financing Postsecondary
Education stated that, even though increased college attendance costs caused
parents and students serious doubts regarding the affordability of a college
education, 'a variety of indicators show participation in postsecondary education at
an all-time high” (p. 54). How is the contradiction explained? Although student
attendance might be at an all-time high, many students are not attending their
college of choice but rather the one they can afford. Another issue to consider is the
dual economic recession and high unemployment rate of the recent past (and the
present, in some regions of the nation). When the job market tightens, many
unemployed go to school. Many students must ﬁnance their education with loans,
and upon completion of their education, face a huge debt burden. For those of
modest and low incomes, this process of accessing and affording higher education
is a vicious cycle that includes ﬁnding funds to stay in school, completing a degree,
and earning wages not only to live but to pay off student loans. At this point, having
exhausted other sources, the student might consider using a scholarship search

service in hopes of locating potential scholarship dollars.

Qll E' 'IE'IS IS'

Scholarship search services are not a new phenomenon, but during the past
decade, numerous scholarship search service businesses have sprung up
throughout the nation. Promising "dollars for scholars,“ these businesses tend to

guarantee that applicants will receive awards. Charging anywhere from $1 5 to $300,

40

search services offer to assist the student in completing the application process, and
many guarantee the student will receive either scholarship dollars or some amount
of refund from the company.

In 1992, the Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office, in conjunction with the
University of VWsconsin-Madison ﬁnancial aid ofﬁce, sought to close down
scholarship search services that seemed to be scam operations. The closing of
search services was discussed in a telephone interview with John Selbo, Director
of Financial Aid at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (telephone interview, May
15, 1995). Selbo stated that his ofﬁce had received numerous calls complaining
about search service scams. Complainants reported they had not received
scholarships, and when they tried to contact the company, the number was no
longer in service. He enlisted the help of the Wisconsin Attorney General’s Ofﬁce,
which in turn was able to obtain refunds for 300 students. Since that time, Selbo
stated, his ofﬁce had received few calls complaining about search services. “We’ve
sent out consumer alerts and press releases to newsletters for high school
counselors. Our goal all along was for the counselors to become more consumer
conscious. We feel successful about it." Certainly, not all search services are scam
operations, but all potential users need to be consumer conscious.

Search services often bear names that offer hope, e.g., Student Fund Finding
Service, Muskegon, MI; Tuition Resources, Williamston, Ml; DECO Consulting,
Sunrise, FL; Scholarship Opportunity Services, Sparta, Ml; Precious Resources,

Wyandotte, MI; American College Assistance Service-Cash for College, Seattle,

41

WA; and Cambridge Educational-Dollars for Scholars, Charleston, WV. A review
of their advertising materials did not provide information on the number of students
who actually were awarded funds. Some of the services did not list an address, only
a toll-free telephone number. Information regarding search services can be found
on college or university campuses, usually tacked to bulletin boards with tear-off
cards for students to take with them, or in advertisements. The companies offer to
send information right to students’ homes and contact schools for them. Financial
aid ofﬁcers and high school counselors reported being contacted by search service
representatives hoping to gain an endorsement from the school to help promote their
business. Parents sometimes contact high school counselors and ﬁnancial aid
ofﬁcers regarding the credibility or legitimacy of search services. Whereas some
counselors respond by encouraging parents to question any guarantees of funds or
money-back advertisements, and to check with the Better Business Bureau or the
state Attorney General’s Ofﬁce on Consumer Protection to ﬁnd out whether any
complaints have been made against the company, others are more openly skeptical
and discourage the use of such services, especially when giving a credit card
number over the telephone. Unfortunately, there are sad stories of people giving
their credit card number to pay for the services up-front and not receiving anything '
in return, only to ﬁnd out the telephone number has been disconnected and the
company no longer Is in business.

As was described previously, many search services have been ordered to

close down their businesses due to fraudulent claims guaranteeing funds for college.

42
An article in the CbLchlLQLﬂQbELEducaim referred to attorneys general

“scrambling to keep up with the complaints thathave been pouring into their ofﬁces
about scholarship companies“ (Collison, 1992, p. A29). Agencies were promising
to
ﬁnd anxious students and parents thousands of dollars in "unclaimed”
scholarship money for fees ranging from $45 to $200. Usually respondents
end up with little more than a list ofﬁnancial aid programs and scholarships.
In some states, ofﬁcials have already won judgments against companies.
(p. A30)
In the same article, it was reported that telemarketing companies were getting in the
arena and were guaranteeing students up to $5,000 in scholarships. All the students
had to do was call a 900 number or charge the fees for the listings to a credit card.
Some students have money for this, but many do not. An opponent of these
services, John G. Bannister, director of ﬁnancial aid at the University of South
Carolina, expressed his opinion: "Too many of these bogus companies are preying

on kids from low-income families who would have gotten Pell Grants and other

ﬁnancial assistance anyway” (Collison, 1992, p. A30).

S . II I I E I I'

The concerns directed toward scholarship search services most often pertain
to the cost for the service and the beneﬁts to the user (i.e., does a user actually
receive any awards)? The latter concern is difﬁcult to assess as, in most cases,
student users do not report back to the search service whether or not they received
any awards. Tracking this information has been haphazard at best and primarily

anecdotal in nature. Some of the colleges or universities that offer a search service

43
to their students have issued surveys to their student users in an attempt to learn
what percentage of users received awards, in order to determine whether it was
worthwhile for them to offer the service. Sangamon State University, Appalachian
State University, and the University of South Carolina surveyed their student users.
Provided in the following pages are the results of the surveys. They serve as
examples of what some institutions have done to evaluate their use of a
computerized scholarship search service.
“I 'Sll 'IS [E III' ICII _
E' . | 9' I S I S .

During April and May 1994, Sangamon State University in Springﬁeld, Illinois,
on behalf of the Illinois Student Assistance Commission, mailed a survey to 1,800
college-bound students and their parents throughout the state of Illinois as one way
to assess the need for an Educational Funding Clearinghouse regarding
scholarships, grants, loans, and other ﬁnancial aid-related topics. They received 549
responses representing about 30% of all individuals in the original sample.

The ﬁndings indicated that about 10% of parents and students surveyed said
they had used a private search company when they were looking for ﬁnancial
assistance. Slightly under one-tenth (9%) reported receiving aid as a result of using
a private search company. Three-quarters (78%) of the respondents indicated they
would not use the same private source again. Just over one-tenth (11%) indicated
they would use the same source, and 9% were not sure whether they would use the

same source again.

44

The highest amount a respondent paid for using a private search service was
$4,000, but some paid nothing. The median amount paid was $45.

According to the Illinois Student Assistance Commission, the most signiﬁcant
ﬁndings of the study were that 91% of the people using a private search company
did not receive any assistance, and 78% of the people using a private search
company would not use the same source again. However, users did not indicate
they would never use any search service again.

The Illinois Student Assistance Commission’s interest in search services was
that of including a service, or information about accessing such services, in a
statewide clearinghouse of student ﬁnancial assistance. The commission concluded
that, if determined to be reputable, search services can provide alternative sources
of ﬁnancial assistance information and would then be an appropriate inclusion in a

clearinghouse.

Ell' SIIII' 'IS IS . SII

In October 1992, Appalachian State University (ASU) in Boone, North
Carolina, began offering START, a scholarship search service, to current and
prospective students. Information regarding the search service’s availability was
mailed to prospective students. Currently enrolled students also were eligible to use
the search service, which was offered free of charge.

One year later, in October 1993, ASU mailed a survey to 1,000 students who
had used the search service. They received responses from 256 students (25.6%).

Results are as follows.

45

A majority (76.7%) of the respondents indicated that they had applied for a
scholarship listed in the search report. Of the 76.7%, 40.4% reported having been
awarded an ASU scholarship that was listed in the search report, and 14.4%
reported that they had been awarded a scholarship listed in their search report by
a sponsor other than ASU. Eighty percent of those who used the service reported
being either satisﬁed or very satisﬁed, and 20% of the users reported being either
dissatisﬁed or very dissatisﬁed. The majority of the respondents (60.5%) reported
that using the service did not affect their decision to attend ASU; 26.2% reported it
was a minor reason, and 13.3% reported it was a major reason. Finally, the majority
of those surveyed (90.2%) indicated that ASU should continue to offer the search
service, 9% were unsure, and less than 1% thought it should be discontinued.

The primary reason ASU offered the scholarship search service was to help
prospective and currently enrolled students locate additional information about
ﬁnancial assistance sources beyond that offered by the university. Second, they
hoped that the search service would help attract prospective students to the
institution. However, they did not ﬁnd a relationship existing between the availability
of the search service and a student’s decision to enroll. They concluded that further
research needed to be conducted to determine whether a scholarship search service
had any effect on a student’s decision to enroll at a particular institution or whether
other factors (which they did not control for in this study) were important in the

decision-making process.

46

II II' 'I [S III: I. Sll
During the early 1990s, the University of South Carolina (USC) began looking

into the idea of offering a computerized scholarship search service to incoming USC
freshmen. At that time they had entered into a short-term contract with a search
service and decided to run a pilot program before making the service available to
students. The purposes of the USC study were (a) to provide students with a list of
possible ﬁnancial aid sources, (b) to gain a realistic idea of whether these students
met the qualiﬁcations to be competitive for the scholarships, (c) to analyze the cost
of implementing the service, and (d) to qualitatively evaluate the search service
software package.

Upon reviewing the ﬁndings of the pilot program, USC decided not to offer the
search service. The study found a low response rate from scholarship sponsors.
For example, requests for applications were mailed to 12 sponsors, and only four
responded within six months. USC assumed that approximately 7,500 students
would use the service each year and that the program would cost approximately
$18,000 to implement. After considering the cost and quality of the searches, the
USC Office of Student Financial Aid and Scholarships could not justify offering a
scholarship matching service. The USC researcher concluded that although these
ﬁndings may not be surprising, and even though USC decided not to offer the
service, it behooved ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers to evaluate private sources of ﬁnancial aid
information that could potentially assist students in their search for scholarship funds

(Bennett, 1994).

47

SQHEQI] Semiges?

Many private scholarship service companies exist. Some are franchisees of
a larger company. However, there is a question about how many separate national
databases of scholarship information exist. Although difficult to determine, it
appears there may be three or four main databases. Whoever does the research
for the national databases relies on their own staff and a clipping service, which most
likely subscribes to thousands of news services throughout the nation. The
information to which they have access is the same information to which a private
citizen can gain access; however, the companies have the advantage of technology.

Anyone can go to a large city library or university library and spend hours
pouring over the pages of student ﬁnancial aid directories. Reading through
scholarship and grant listings is a tedious and time-consuming process. Technology
allows this information to be loaded into a database and accessed with ease. With
the exception of some large public libraries where a search service is offered free,
once technology is involved, there often is a cost to the user. Now the user can
choose between his or her time in the library, contracting with a search service, or
both, because the sources found in the library are not identical to what is found in
a search service database. It is important for the student user to realize that a
search service is an alternative method and not considered the ﬁrst step in the
ﬁnancial aid process. It is always recommended that a student contact the ﬁnancial
aid ofﬁce at a college or university he or she is interested in attending when

beginning the search for funds for postsecondary education.

48
IbeCASHEELQgram

One search company that stands by its product and service and does not

offer guarantees is CASH E—College Aid Sources for Higher Ed ucation-a 14-year-

old proprietary ﬁnancial aid resource system. It was developed by National College

Services, Ltd. (NCSL), headed by Dr. Herm Davis, President. This collection of

ﬁnancial aid information grew out of the perceived need to have a central library of

information to assist students as they looked for ways to fund their college

education. CASHE is described as a sophisticated, yet user-friendly, ﬁnancial aid

and scholarship retrieval system. Students interested in locating sources beyond the

state and federal programs can search for sources of funds from a database of an

estimated 4,100 sources, 14,000 resources, and 200,000 resource distributions as

deﬁned below:
Source:

Resource:

Resource
Distribution:

The agency or institution that sponsors the funds.

These are the different types of resource distributions or
funding titles that a source sponsors. For example, The
Business and Professional Women’s Club (B.P.W.) (the
source) sponsors ﬁve (5) scholarships for women returning to
college, another scholarship for mature women majoring in
engineering and another for women majoring in accounting.
The various awards (resources) would account for three (3)
resources sponsored by one source.

These are the number of awards that are included in each
resource. For example, the B.P.W. (source) sponsors three (3)
scholarships (resources), and there are ﬁve (5) (resource
distributions) for mature women returning to college.

49

These resources include leads on 13,91 1 scholarships, 713 fellowships, 318
loans, 83 Internships, and 95 work cooperative programs. The database allows for
the discovery of aid for both undergraduate and graduate assistance.

The quality of the information in the CASHE program is the result of an
intense, systematic annual veriﬁcation and updating process. NCSL makes a proﬁt
by leasing the CASHE database of scholarship information sources to private
business owners, public institutions, or anyone who can afford to pay for It. NCSL’s
lease contract with the lessee requires NCSL to agree to verify and update its
sources on a regular basis. The cost to lease the CASHE system has been based
on several factors to make the system affordable for all institutions. It is scaled
according to the size of the institution and whether or not they charge the student
(NCSL’s promotional materials, 1992). According to Davis (cited in Collison, 1992),
”Colleges pay $2,200 to $5,000 a year for CASH E. Public school districts typically
pay a lower group rate of $300 to $600 for each school that gets the service” (p.
A30).

It is the custom of most schools to offer the services free or to charge a
modest fee to cover the cost of computer time to gain access to a database.
However, the fee agreed to in the lease contract between NCSL and the Michigan
Higher Education Assistance Authority/Loan Authority-Office of Student Financial
Assistance (MHEAA/LA-OSFA) was much higherthan what a college would typically
pay as the MHEAA/LA-OSFA’s program had the potential to serve many more users

than an individual school.

50

NCSL’s(1992) marketing materials provided thefollowing rationale regarding

why an institution would use a ﬁnancial aid resource system:

It can be a valuable resource tool ifthe institution and students make full use
of its potential.

It is an excellent service for high school counselors to make available in
conjunction with the college selection and admissions process.

Federal aid is limited as is aid from colleges, and many times the aid
available inﬂuences the high school senior’s college choice.

Colleges or universities can use the system as a recruitment or retention tool
by mailing the information to prospective students and making the system
available to current students.

Some universities charge for use of the system, while others make it available
free of charge. Charging a fee mainly places a value on the proﬁle which
motivates the student to follow up and be persistent. It also helps the
institution defray the cost to lease the system.

It can streamline the high school and college counselor’s awesome task of
providing students with the most up-to-date ﬁnancial aid information. The
public relations that comes as a result enhances the counselor’s and
institution’s reputation.

NCSL-CASHE reportedly subscribes to a list of compliances or criteria for

evaluating the credibility of a professional database that was recommended by the

National Association of Financial Aid Administrators. The database credibility criteria

include: full time staff; permanent address, not operated out of one’s residence;

provides ”800' number; has regular ofﬁce hours (8-5); allows for visitation to the

processing center; provides a refund policy; veriﬁes data annually; produces its own

database; has trained professional staff; provides letters of reference; provides

professional prepared materials; does not rely on a telephone answering service;

51

sends staff to professional meetings; does not guarantee money; and does not use
misleading statistical Inference.
NCSL-CASHE has existed for more than 15 years. Thus far, it has lived up

to the criteria for credibility. No studies or data were found to the contrary.

S [II I 'I I B .

The preceding information spoke to the evolution, history, and nature of
ﬁnancial aid, particularly need-based aid, and was meant to illustrate why and how
student ﬁnancial aid was developed, as well as the complexities of the topic. The
main purpose of ﬁnancial aid is, and was, to provide increased opportunities for
access to postsecondary education by eliminating ﬁnancial concerns that could
hinder individuals from entering college, unnecessarily limiting students’ choice or
institution, or impeding students in their academic progress toward degree
completion (Leslie 8 Brinkman, 1988). Policymakers debate the issues of whether
or not to continue funding ﬁnancial aid programs, which programs to fund, and how
much money to allocate toward them.

I The following points emerged from the literature review and provide the

setting for the study:

1. Gaining access to higher education opportunities requires gaining
access to funding sources. The question is how to gain access.

2. The cost of attending higher education continues to rise. Who should
bear the greater share of the burden--the individual and/or families, or the

government via taxpayers?

52

3. Reviewing the history of ﬁnancial aid provides background for
understanding whether scholarship search services have a plaCe in the overall
picture of ﬁnancial aid funding sources.

4. A variety of scholarship search services are available to students and
their families.

The aforementioned points relate to securing the funds that enable access
to higher education. Funding sources have decreased, and costs of attendance
have risen. Students and their families are looking for alternative sources of
ﬁnancial aid. This researcher examined one type of alternative ﬁnancial aid
information sourcenMI-CASHE (Michigan-College Aid Sources for Higher
Education)--and its perceived effectiveness in terms of costs and beneﬁts to the

user.

CHAPTER III

MI-CASHE AS A CASE STUDY

For the purposes of this study, the Ml-CASHE program was reviewed as a
case study. The case study method was chosen because Ml-CASHE was newly
offered by the Ofﬁce of Student Financial Assistance and because of the type of data
that needed to be collected in order to evaluate its effectiveness. The evaluation
methods, or data-collection methods, included a mailed questionnaire and telephone
interviews. Further, the case study method was chosen based on Yin’s (1989)
deﬁnition, which is as follows: "A case study is an empirical inquiry that . . .
investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the
boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which
multiple sources of evidence are used" (p. 23). In this case the researcher studied
whether Ml-CASHE was effective as a Iocator of sources of nonstate and nonfederal
student ﬁnancial aid. In addition, the researcher considered whether Ml-CASHEwas
effective in terms of costs and beneﬁts to the user, and whether it was worth the
student user's time and money to use Ml-CASH E. Also considered was what, ifany,
effect could a database of private sources of student ﬁnancial aid have on public

policy issues surrounding funds for student ﬁnancial aid programs?

53

54

Yin (1989) provided a deﬁnition of a single-case study method that was
appropriate for studying the perceived effeCtiveness of Ml-CASHE. He offered three
rationales for using a single-case study method. One rationale for a single-case is
when it represents the critical case in testing a well-formulated theory (p. 47). A
second rationale is where the case represents an extreme or unique case (p. 47).
A third rationale for a single-case study is the revelatory case (p. 48). For the
purposes of this study, the revelatory case most closely provided the rationale for
pursuing a case study method. Yin described the revelatory case study as one in
which ”the investigator has access to a situation previously inaccessible to scientiﬁc
study. The case study is therefore worth conducting because the descriptive
information alone will be revelatory“ (p. 49). Yin added that there are other situations
in which a single-case study method is appropriate. However, a potential
vulnerability exists in that a case may later turn out not to be the case it was thought
to be at the outset. Careful investigation of the potential case is required to minimize
the chances of misrepresentation and to maximize the access needed to collect the
case study evidence.

Isaac and Michael (1981) cited two advantages of using the case study
method. One advantage is that case studies can provide useful background
information from which to plan further investigations. Case studies can be very
Intensive and can ”bring to light the important variables, processes and interactions

that deserve more extensive attention“ (p. 48). The second advantage is that “case

55
study data provide useful anecdotes or examples to illustrate more generalized
statistical'ﬁndings' (p. 48).

The reasons for developing this project as a case study are based on Yin’s
(1989) and Isaac and Michael’s (1981) work describing the use of the case study
method. It was worth studying the costs and beneﬁts of Ml-CASHE for the users
and the Michigan Higher Education Assistance Authority/Loan Authority (MHEAAI
LA) because “the descriptive information alone will be revelatory' (Yin, 1989).
Because this was the ﬁrst evaluation of Ml-CASHE for the MHEAA/LA, there was
considerable information to be revealed regarding the initial effect of the program for
both the direct and indirect users. In addition to learning about user satisfaction and
costs and beneﬁts of using and operating the MI-CASHE program, the results

provided the basis for future evaluations.

WM

Conducting this single-case study required using both quantitative and
qualitative methods. The quantitative method included sending a survey to a sample
of those who were direct users of the MI-CASHE program. The group of direct users
was made up of students, both undergraduate and graduate, who used the program
during the ﬁrst ﬁve months of program operation. The intention of the survey was
to assess Ml-CASHE users’ satisfaction and to ﬁnd out whether they found it to be
an effective method of gaining access to information regarding altematlve
postsecondary education funding sources and whether it was worth their time as

related to costs and beneﬁts of using the program. The qualitative portion of the

56

study was carried out by conducting individual interviews with a sample of people
who were designated as indirect users of Ml-CASHE (parents of student users, high
school counselors, and college and university ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers), as well as
follow-up interviews conducted with direct users (students) who used Ml-CASHE.
The purpose of the interviews was to ﬁnd out whether those who were indirectly
involved with using Ml-CASHE found it to be worthwhile in terms of the costs and
beneﬁts of gaining access to information about altematlve postsecondary education
funding sources. The interviews with the direct users, students, followed up on
comments they wrote on the open-ended items on the mailed questionnaires.

User satisfaction and the costs and beneﬁts of using Ml-CASHEwere studied
by issuing a survey instrument mailed to a group of applicants (students) who used
the service during the ﬁrst ﬁve months of M l-CASHE operations, i.e., November and
December 1993, and January, February, and March 1994. There were approxi-
mately 2,800 students who used Ml-CASHE during that time. The subjects selected
from the group were chosen because they used Ml-CASHE in the initial program
operation stages, and the Support Services unit was seeking information relative to
user satisfaction during the early development of the program.

The qualitative piece consisted of individual telephone interviews with parents
of student users, high school counselors, college and university ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers,
and student users. The purpose of the interviews was to gather and analyze the

perceptions of the group members regarding whether the Ml-CASHE intervention

57

was an effective means of locating information regarding ﬁnancial aid resources and

whether it was a beneﬁcial use of public monies.

Metbcdclch
Sums

W. The ﬁrst group of subjects involved in the study
were “direct users,” or those students who used the Ml-CASHE computerized
ﬁnancial aid resource Iocator program sometime during the ﬁrst ﬁve months of
operation, i.e., November 1, 1993, through March 31, 1994. During this time frame,
about 2,800 students, mainly from the state of Michigan, used the MI-CASHE
program. A statistical random sample of 300 student respondents was required for
the study. Such a sample would achieve an error bound of 0.25 at a 95%
conﬁdence level. The student demographic characteristics of gender and race were
used as the primary stratifying variables. Surveys were sent to a sample of
approximately 800 students selected randomly from the 2,800 users. Assuming a
minimum return rate of 30%, it was expected that the resulting sample size for the
study would be approximately 300. After initial surveying, two follow-up efforts were
made to increase responses.

The researcher also conducted follow-up telephone interviews with ten
student users in order to probe further the users’ perceptions of the effectiveness of
MI-CASHE and whether they believed it was worth their time and money to use Ml-
CASHE. The ten students participating in the telephone interviews were selected

in one of two ways. Using a random number process, the researcher selected ﬁve

 

(A

58

of the students from the pool of applicants who did not receive a mailed
questionnaire. The remaining ﬁve students were selected from the pool of
questionnaire respondents who wrote extensive comments on their questionnaires.
All of the students were contacted by telephone in order to explain the study and
request their participation. The rationale for using this population of subjects was to
support the program evaluation and user satisfaction inquiry being sponsored by the
MHEAAILA. Conducting research on Ml-CASHE was approved by the MHEAAILA
and agreed on as a mutually beneﬁcial project for MHEAAILA and the researcher.

NW. The second group of subjects who participated
in the study were those ”indirect users" of Ml-CASHE—that is, parents of students
who used Ml-CASHE, high school counselors, and college and university ﬁnancial
aid ofﬁcers who could have assisted students in using Ml-CASHE. Each group
consisted often members. The selection process differed for each group. Parents
of student users were selected using a random number process from the pool of
student users who did not receive a questionnaire. The high school counselors were
selected using the following criteria: (a) the geographic location of their school in the
state, (b) the number of students attending the high school, and (c) the racial
diversity of students attending the school. College and university ﬁnancial aid
ofﬁcers were selected using the following criteria: (a) the type of institution, to
ensure representation from each of the four types: community college, four-year
public, four-year independent, and two-year independent; and (b) the geographic

location of the institution in the state, ensuring that all regions were represented.

59

Members of all three groups received a letter introducing the study, followed by a
telephone call requesting their participation; if conﬁrmed, an interview was
scheduled. Each interview lasted approximately 20 minutes. A standardized

interview protocol was used with each group of interviewees.

Insmlmenmiinn

When the students ﬁrst applied to the Ml-CASHE program, they completed
an application, which provided speciﬁc background information that was used in the
matching process. The items included: name, address and telephone number, age,
birth date, racial designation, heritage, marital status, religious preference, handicap,
citizenship, high school attended, grade point average, college entrance exam
scores (some reported SAT scores, but the majority reported ACT scores), academic
interests, career objectives, and colleges and universities the student was interested
in attending. In addition, there were items pertaining to the parents of the student.
The items included: one or both parents living or deceased, veteran status, disabled
in action, killed in action, handicap, employer, and activities or organizations.

To obtain student information about progress these students had made in
using Ml-CASHE, a questionnaire was designed. The questionnaire was mailed to
the students, the direct users of Ml-CASHE, who were selected into the sample.
Using this instrument, respondents were asked to indicate, through a series of
questions, the extent to which they followed through (which deﬁned ”persistence" in
this study) on the application process. For instance, did the user request application

materials from the match list of sources he or she received? If so, did the user

60

retum the completed applications to the sponsoring agency? Did the user receive
an award(s)? If yes, how many awards did the user receive, and what was the total
amount of the award(s)?

Second, the questionnaire asked whether or not the user was satisﬁed with
the MI-CASHE program. A ﬁve-point Likert-type scale was developed to answer
questions referring to user satisfaction. In addition, the questionnaire allowed for
open-ended responses to questions regarding user satisfaction.

As noted previously, follow-up telephone interviews were conducted with ten
students in order to probe more fully the effectiveness of using Ml-CASHE.
Questions explored further in the interviews concerned whether the students were
satisﬁed with their Ml-CASHE match list, whether they persisted through the entire
Ml-CASHE application process, and their perceptions of the effectiveness and
worthwhileness of using the search service. A copy of the questionnaire is included
in Appendix D.

Individual telephone interviews were conducted with a sample of indirect
users of Ml-CASHE-parents of student users, high school counselors, and ﬁnancial
aid ofﬁcers. Interview protocols were used for each individual interview conducted.
The protocol questions focused on the perceived effectiveness of MI-CASHE and,
in the case of the interview with parents whose student used the program, their level
of satisfaction regarding whether Ml-CASHE met their expectations. Questions
directed toward the counselors and ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers focused on their perceptions

of the effectiveness of MI-CASHE as professionals who assist students in locating

61

sources of ﬁnancial aid information. Copies of the interview protocols can be found

in Appendix E.

Daiaﬂnllecﬂnn

Data were collected in two forms, quantitative and qualitative. The
quantitative data were collected using the questionnaire that was mailed to the
student users of Ml-CASHE in December 1994 and the application form that these
students completed when they ﬁrst used Ml-CASHE. The student applications had
been received between November 1993 and March 1994. The qualitative data were
collected by conducting telephone interviews with ten members from each group
consisting of student users, parents of student users, high school counselors, and
ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers. The interviews were conducted between February and April
1995. A standard interview protocol was developed for each group. Notes were
taken during the interviews. The interviews were not tape recorded. Two additional
interviews were conducted, one with the executive director of the Ofﬁce of Student
Financial Assistance and one with the director of the Support Services Programs
Ofﬁce. They were interviewed in person. Both directors were provided with a copy
of the interview protocol before the meeting. Notes were taken during each

interview, but neither session was tape recorded.

Variables
Dependenuarjables. The dependent variables or outcomes were (a) the

perceived effectiveness of MI-CASHE by direct and indirect users and (b)

62

persistence-the extent to which the direct users persisted through the entire Ml-
CASHE application process. Reiterating the deﬁnitions used in this study,
persistence was deﬁned as a student’s continuing in school from one year to the
next, resulting in degree completion, and also the student’s following through all
steps of the Ml-CASHE application process. Two groups depicting two types of user
proﬁles emerged: persisters—those who followed through the entire Ml-CASHE
application process, and nonpersisters—those who did not and subsequently did not
use the match list to apply for any awards. Counselors and ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers
were asked for their perceptions regarding whether ﬁnancial aid in general and MI-
CASHE as a speciﬁc source of ﬁnancial aid had any effect on student persistence.

Indenendentxariables. The independent variables or predictors consisted of
all student demographic characteristics as reported by the students on their Ml-
CASHE application form, e.g., age, race, grade point average, test scores, and so
on. The variables chosen for study were those variables that might be useful in
predicting the composite proﬁles of persisters and nonpersisters and that would be
helpful in analyzing the differences between the two groups. No hypothesis was put
forth regarding which variables to choose. The reason for not constructing a
hypothesis is that a limited number of studies have thus far been reported on this
topic, and no previous studies have been conducted using a design similar to this
one. In addition, this study was an extension of a formative evaluation project in
which the researcher was recording data describing the developmental stages of the

scholarship search service. The research design came after the evaluation.

63
Therefore, instead of developing a hypothesis to guide the study, a set of research

questions was designed for that purpose.

W

The data analysis followed two phases, the quantitative phase and the
qualitative phase.

Quantitatiyephase. This phase included descriptive statistics in the form of
means, standard deviations, and frequencies. These descriptive statistics were
used to assess the effectiveness of MI-CASHE as related to selected student
demographic characteristics such as gender, age, and race.

The statistical technique of discriminant analysis was used to determine the
predictors that best distinguished the two groups of students (i.e., those who
followed through the entire Ml-CASHE application process and those who did not).
Using a discriminant analysis model, a researcher can studythe differences between
two or more groups of subjects while simultaneously comparing them to other
variables (Klecka, 1980, p. 7). In this study, the groups were labeled as persisters
and nonpersisters. The discriminant analysis model analyzed the differences
between the groups of persisters and nonpersisters and then assigned or classiﬁed
each case into the group it most closely resembled (Klecka, 1980). A case referred
to each questionnaire that was returned, and data collected from each case were
entered into the database.

For the purposes of this study, a stepwise discriminant analysis model was

used. The stepwise model looked at all the variables, and, through a process of

64

elimination, the model selected and retained only the strongest predictors. The
stepwise process stopped when no other predictor was'being removed and none
were added. Step by step, the model determined which variables were signiﬁcant
predictors for determining the group to which each case was assigned. In this study,
the cases were being classiﬁed or grouped as either persisters or nonpersisters in
the Ml-CASHE application process. The differences being sought were between the
dependent variable, persistence, and the independent variables or predictors, which
consisted of student demographic information.

The stepwise discriminant analysis model looked at the main effect of each
predictor and not the interactive effect. The interactive effect tended to overwhelm
the model. If each interactive effect were to become a predictor, then too many
predictors would result, and the model would become saturated. Minimizing the
number of predictors or independent variables allowed the resulting predictors to
have greater signiﬁcance and more strength in determining which predictors were
used to classify each case as either persisters or nonpersisters.

The .05 alpha level was used as the criterion for statistical signiﬁcance. This
corresponds to a 95% conﬁdence level in the sampling distribution under the
standard normal distribution curve.

Qualitatmnase. Content analysis was used to assess the perceived
effectiveness of Ml-CASHE by the indirect users, i.e., parents, high school
counselors, and college ﬁnancial aid officers. Content analysis included reviewing

notes taken during the interviews and categorizing data gathered from the interviews

65
that described and explained the activity or event being focused on. It was the
researcher’s task to determine how best to tell the story of the event or activity. The
researcher watched for potential patterns to emerge from the participants’
responses. The responses or data were categorized by certain themes, i.e.,
perceived effectiveness of Ml-CASHE, whether it was perceived by direct and
indirect users as worthwhile in terms of costs and beneﬁts, awareness of ﬁnancial
aid opportunities, user satisfaction with the program, and ease of application process
(e.g., helpfulness of MI-CASHE ofﬁce staff if the user called the ofﬁce). Other
themes were allowed to emerge as the data were being collected, and additional

categories were determined accordingly.

I' 'I I' [II SI I

As is true of most studies, this project had limitations. Knowledge of those
limitations at the onset helped the researcher and will help the reader to understand
the boundaries of the study and the kinds of results that were to be expected.

Because the user population that was studied participated during the ﬁrst ﬁve
months of Ml-CASHE’s existence, the researcher was interested in the immediate
effect of the program (the short-term effects). True, a longitudinal study would tell
more of the persistence of its effects. Thus, the short-term versus the long-term
effectiveness of MI-CASHE use will not be known through this study. This is a
limitation and provides opportunity for future research.

It is also important to note that the user population studied did not receive the

questionnaire until approximately one year after they applied to MI-CASHE. This

66
time lapse could have an effect on students’ perceptions of Ml-CASHE and how they
recalled their experience.

Information was not collected regarding the socioeconomic status ofthe users
and/or study participants. However, the ten parents who participated in the
telephone interviews were asked to indicate their income, based on a range of
amounts. Socioeconomic information of the 367 users would have provided an
additional independent variable to consider in the proﬁle descriptions. Future
evaluation studies should consider including users’ socioeconomic information.

The ﬁndings of this study are not generalizable, as no other studies have
been conducted in exactly the same manner as this one. Other researchers have
surveyed the direct users (students) only; thus, comparison among or between
studies was limited (Light, Singer, 8 Willett, 1990). From this study the MHEAAILA
could elect to conduct follow-up studies or a longitudinal study with this same
population. However, the MHEAAILA was interested in an evaluation of the early
effect of Ml-CASHE, including direct and indirect users’ satisfaction, in order to
provide information regarding the service and product.

Instead of having other groups with which to compare ﬁndings, this study
used the case study method and looked at one instance or case, the MI-CASHE
program. The ﬁndings provided descriptive information speciﬁc to the subject. The
ﬁndings suggested ways the program affected access to ﬁnancial aid sources other
than state and federal programs, whether it is worthwhile in terms of costs and

beneﬁts, and practically speaking, whether it does what the company claims.

67

Another limitation in using the case study method was that ”case studies are
particularly vulnerable to subjective biases” (Isaac 8 Michael, 1981, p. 48). One of
the reasons often used for choosing a certain case is because it ”ﬁts the
researcher’s preconceptions.“ Selective judgments may be determining whether
certain data are used or not, or how data are interpreted. Thus, ”subjective
interpretation [may] inﬂuence the outcome” (Isaac 8 Michael, 1981, p. 48). It is up
to the researcher to restrict subjective biases in every way possible. The researcher
had to make a conscious effort to quote directly from the interview and not pass
judgments or direct the subjects to alter their expectations or motivations because
any of those actions can inﬂuence the responses or data collected. For example,
I not quoting directly from the subject’s responses could have resulted in reﬂecting the

researcher's perspective rather than the subject’s.

Importanceﬁjbesmdv

Despite the limitations, the results of this study will be important to a number
of audiences who are interested in knowing the effectiveness of Ml-CASHE as a
prototype of scholarship search services. Financial aid ofﬁcers, high school
counselors, and parents of students wanted to know whether using MI-CASHE, a
speciﬁc scholarship search service, was worth their time and money. Initially, the
study was a program evaluation of Ml-CASHE, a newly established service provided
by the MHEAAILA, Ofﬁce of Student Financial Assistance, Support Services
Programs. The questionnaire served as a user satisfaction survey and attempted

to measure the perceived effectiveness of Ml-CASHE. The results will be used to

68

make improvements in the program or service. The satisfaction level of direct and
indirect users was a factor that could affect whether or not the service will continue
to be offered.

According to information gathered by the Ofﬁce of Student Financial
Assistance, Support Services Programs, college and university ﬁnancial aid officers
are interested in teaming more about computerized ﬁnancial aid search services.
Parents and students often ask aid ofﬁcers for their opinions regarding these
services. Programs similarto Ml-CASHE exist, and many charge much higher user
fees. Direct and indirect users alike want to be informed consumers. They want to
know whether it is worth their time and money to use a program such as Ml-CASHE
and speciﬁcally whether they will be awarded funds.

Finally, the CASHE program, which is a national database, had not been
evaluated yet to the extent provided by this case study. If NCSL, which developed
CASHE, have evaluated their program for effectiveness, they have not made the
results public. One outcome of this study was to inform NCSL as to how Michigan

residents perceived the effectiveness of using Ml-CASHE.

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

The research ﬁndings are described in this chapter. The report ofthe ﬁndings

begins with a description of the basic demographic characteristics. The ﬁndings

then go on to the analyses, presented as both quantitative and qualitative

methodology, and are guided by the three research questions and their related

subquestions, as described in the Statement of the Problem in Chapter I. The three

research questions and related subquestions are as follows:

1. How effective was MI-CASHE as perceived by students who used it?

1a.

1b.

10.

What are the proﬁles of the Ml-CASHE users? Are there
differences between those who follow through all the steps of
the application process (persisters) and those who do not
follow through the entire process (nonpersisters) in terms of
age, gender, race, grade point average, academic interests,
handicaps or disability, religious preference, parents’
occupation (labeled as professional or nonprofessional),
students’ career objective, area where students live,
citizenship, marital status, enrollment status, users’ year in
school, ACT composite score, and SAT math and verbal
scores?

To what extent do students who persist through the application
process receive funds?

Does use of Ml-CASHE increase awareness of ﬁnancial aid
sources?

69

70

1d. To what extent do students who have used MI-CASHE
perceive the program to be effective?

1e. To what extent to direct users (students) perceive Ml-CASHE
as worthwhile in terms of costs and beneﬁts?

1f. What are some indicators of client or direct user satisfaction?

2. How effective is Ml-CASHE as perceived by indirect users (parents of
users, high school counselor, and college and university ﬁnancial aid
ofﬁcers?

2a. To what extent do indirect users perceive Ml-CASHE as
effective in locating sources of scholarship information?

2b. To what extent do parents of users perceive MI-CASHE as
worthwhile in terms of costs and beneﬁts?

20. What are some indicators of indirect user satisfaction?

3. What lessons can be learned from Ml-CASHE concerning public
policy issues?

3a. What lessons are learned from this case study concerning
policy issues surrounding provisions for access to funding
sources and higher education?

3b. What are the costs and beneﬁts to the MHEAAILA in terms of
providing the Ml-CASHE program for the residents of
Michigan?

To assist the reader, the deﬁnitions of theterms “persister' and "nonpersister”
are reiterated as follows. Persisters are those who follow through allthe steps of the
application process, and nonpersisters are those who do not follow through the
process. Other terms referred to frequently are ”effective,” ”beneﬁcial,”
”persistence,” and “access.” Effective is deﬁned as the user’s perceptions

concerning three areas: (a) the degree of success of Ml-CASHE in locating

appropriate sources forthe student to apply for, meaning those sources the student

71

is eligible to apply for, based on the eligibility criteria designated by the funding
sponsor, (b) the degree of success of Ml-CASHE in students’ persisting and
receiving application forms as responses from the funding sponsor; and (c) the
degree of success of Ml-CASHE in students’ actually receiving a monetary award
from the funding sponsor. Beneﬁcial is deﬁned as direct and indirect users’
perceptions concerning the extent to which the program is a worthwhile expenditure
of public monies. Beneﬁcial can be viewed along a continuum, or degrees, in
accordance with the three areas in which the term ”effective" is deﬁned. Relative to
the literature, persistence is deﬁned as a student’s continuing in school from one
year to the next, resulting in degree completion. For the purpose of this study,
persistence is deﬁned as the student’s following through all steps of the Ml-CASHE
application process. Using interview questions, there is a very limited attempt to
consider whether persistence in following through the MI-CASHE application
process could have any correlation to whether a student persists through to degree
completion. Access is deﬁned as gaining entrance or admittance to postsecondary

educaﬁon.

B . D I. D . I'

The following information is a summary of the student demographic data
found in the table entitled Users’ Demographic Variables located in Appendix A. The
sample of Ml-CASHE users was described according to the self-reported
characteristics obtained from the user application forms. The application was

designed by the CASHE-NCSL company and used by the Ml-CASHE program (and

72
any other entity that has leased the CASHE database). For the purposes of this
study, the Ml-CASHE student users were referred to as users, students, or
respondents, interchangeably.

A total of 367 questionnaires were returned, which equaled a response rate
of 47% after two follow-up requests to the initial mailing. Again, the respondents
who participated in the program did so sometime during the ﬁrst ﬁve months of the
program operation (i.e., November and December 1993 through January, February,
and March 1994). Seventy-ﬁve percent (278) of the users were seniors in high
school when they used MI-CASHE. Thirty-three (9%) of the respondents were
freshmen in college at the time they used Ml-CASHE. High school grade point
averages of the users ranged from 1.80 to 4.00 on a 4.00 scale, with a mean grade
point average of 3.32.

Among respondents, 214 (58%) were males and 153 (41%) were females.

Most users (290, 79%) were 17 or 18 years old at the time they used Ml-
CASHE, with 206 (56%) users aged 17. Fifteen users were 16 years old, 12 were
19 years old, 11 were 21 years old, and 2 were 50 years old.

Of the users, 344 (93%) reported being of single status.

Relative to racial description, 140 (43.9%) of the users were white; 86 (27%)
were black; the other 93 (29.1%) respondents consisted of other minority
populations (i.e., Asian [1 1%], Native American [6.6%], Hispanic [9.1 %], or indicated
minority [2.5%] rather than a speciﬁc race). There were 48 missing cases.

U.S. citizenry was held by 357 (97%) of the Ml-CASHE users.

73

About one-third, or 120 (32%), of the respondents listed Catholic as their
religious preference. In total, 174 (47%) listed one of the traditionally known
Protestant religions as their preference. Religious preferences other than the two
aforementioned made up 62 (17%) of the responses.

The CASHEcompany determined a list ofhandicaps based on previous users
and listed the following categories on the application: visual, hearing, emotionally,
learning disability, physical, not speciﬁc, respiratory, or no handicap. Based on the
possible choices, 271 (74%) of the respondents indicated having no handicap; 29
(8%) indicated having a handicap of one of the types listed above.

Students indicated their preference of career objectives based on choices
they made from a list of careers determined by the search service. When reviewing
career objective information as possible variables in the search for persister
variables, the career objective categories were collapsed into the following two
categories: highly technical and professional. The rationale for collapsing the career
choices into two categories was to make it easier to insert the variables into the
statistical model of discriminant analysis, for analysis of the data. Approximately
42% of the students indicated a career objective choice that was categorized as
professional, and 58% chose a career objective categorized as highly technical.
(See the Users’ Demographic Variables table, Appendix A.) The categories included
the following career objectives:

Highly technical: architecture, aviation, computer industry, dental

administration, electronics industry, engineering, health and medicine,
research, science, vocational, or technical.

74

Professional: agriculture, athletic career, automotive industry, business
management, coal industry, construction, fashion or design, ﬁne arts, food
service or food management, funeral service, government service, higher
education study, historic preservation, hotel or restaurant management,
insurance administration, journalism or communications, law, legal secretary,
publishing, public service, radio or tv, real estate, social work, teaching or
education, religion or theology, transportation industry, or wholesale
distribution.

The aforementioned student demographic information made up the pool of
possible independent variables inserted into the discriminant analysis model. The
demographic information was used to develop the proﬁles of each of the 367 cases
in the study, classifying them into one of two groups as either persisters or

nonpersisters. Further explanation of this data-analysis process will follow.

E'I'El"lIIB IDI'

As stated above, three research questions were developed to guide the study
and provide a systematic manner in which to collect the data and report the results.
The questions will be listed such that the response data are reported in either

quantitative, qualitative, and in some cases both forms of analysis.

W
How effective was Ml-CASHE as perceived by students who used it?
The effectiveness of using Ml-CASHE will be interpreted using the deﬁnitions
of the term. Those deﬁnitions, brieﬂy stated, are: (a) the degree of success in
locating information sources, (b) the degree of success relative to the student’s
persistence in the application process, and (c) the degree of success resulting in the

students being awarded funds.

75

In terms of locating information sources, 180 (49%) of the students indicated
they were very‘dissatisﬁed and somewhat dissatisﬁed with the results of their search
report (i.e., list of information sources) from using MI-CASHE. Another 80 (22%) of
the students indicated that they were neither satisﬁed nor dissatisﬁed, and 78 (21%)
were somewhat satisﬁed with their results. Twenty-two (6%) of the students
reported being satisﬁed with their results, and there were seven (2%) missing
responses. Almost half of the respondents were not satisﬁed with their results,
which indicates that the Ml-CASHE search reports received by the student users in
this study provided somewhat ineffective sources of scholarship information.

W: What are the proﬁles of the Ml-CASHE users? Are
there differences between those who follow through all the steps of the
application process (persisters) and those who do not follow through the
entire process (nonpersisters) in terms of age, gender, race, grade point
average, academic interests, handicaps or disability, religious preference,
parents’ occupation (labeled as professional or nonprofessional), students’
career objective, area where students live, citizenship, marital status,
enrollment status, users’ year in school, ACT composite score, and SAT math
and verbal scores?

The statistical technique of discriminant analysis was used to determine the
MI-CASHE users, or cases, that would become members of one of two groups of
either persisters or nonpersisters. The discriminant analysis model was used to
compare the independent variables or predictors with the dependent variable,
persistence. The purpose was to select the characteristics (independent variables)
that described the proﬁles of the persisters and nonpersisters. The users were then

classiﬁed into one of the two proﬁle groups. The discriminant analysis model

selected the characteristics in a systematic stepwise format that compared the

76

demographics of each case in the study (the independent variables) with persistence
(the dependent variable). Thus, the model went about comparing a possible group
of 15 independent variables, for each of 367 cases, with the dependent variable.
Those 1 5 independent variables were the characteristics listed in Research Question
1a. Table 1 displays the independent variables brieﬂy. A more detailed table can

be found in Appendix A.

Table 1: Student information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale
Independent Variable Operational Deﬁnition
Number Percent
Age of user 16-17 years old 221 60.2
18 and older 146 39.8
Gender of user Male 214 58.0
Female 153 41.0
Race of user White 140 43.9
Black 86 27.0
Hispanic 29 9.1
Native American 21 6.6
Asian 35 1 1.0
Other 8 2.5
(Unidentiﬁed) (48)
Grade point average of High school and college _
user GPA range: 1.80-4.00 Average 3'32
Career objective of user Professional 153 41.7
Highly technical 214 58.3
Handicap of user Handicap 29 9.7
No handicap 271 90.3
(Unidentiﬁed) (67)

 

 

 

77

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Continued.
Scale
Independent Variable Operational Deﬁnition
Number Percent
Religious preference of Christian (Catholic
user or Protestant) 294 82.6
Non-Christian 62 17.4
(Unidentiﬁed) (1 1)
Parents’ occupation Professional-mother 124 41.6
career type Nonprofessionalnmother 174 58.4
ProfessionaI--father 134 49.6
Nonprofessionalnfather 136 50.4
Area where student (user) Rural/farm 47 12.8
resides Small city/town 143 39.0
Suburban 110 30.0
Urban 65 17.7
Citizenship of users United States 357 97.2
Non-United States 10 2.8
Marital status of users Single 352 96.0
Married 9 3.0
(Unidentiﬁed) 6 1.0
Enrollment status of users Full-time 349 95.1
Part-time 15 4.1
(Unidentiﬁed) 3 .8
Year in school of users Junior/senior in high school 291 80.0
College-all undergrads. 64 17.0
College-grad. students 1 1 3.0
(Unidentiﬁed) (1 )

 

 

ACT score of users

 

 

College entrance exam
composite score: scale 1-36

 

Average score = 23
Range = 10-36
301 scores reported

 

 

78

Table 1: Continued.

 

 

 

 

Scale
Independent Variable Operational Deﬁnition
Number Percent
SAT score of users College entrance exam-
2 parts
Total score scale: 1-1600
SAT-Verbal Average score = 507

Range = 210-720
81 scores reported

SAT-Math Average score = 574
Range = 260-800
80 scores reported

 

 

 

 

 

Note: The information included in Table 1 was collected from the Ml-CASHE
application completed by each student user (N = 367).

The information displayed in Table 1 was meant to provide the reader with a
brief description of the MI-CASHE users who responded to the questionnaire. The
15 independent variables represented personal information provided by each MI-
CASHE applicant when they completed the MI-CASHE application. The information
was then used to determine which scholarships the students were matched with.
The student information, or independent variables, was then reviewed by the
discriminant analysis model to determine the proﬁles of the persisters and
nonpersisters.

Afterthe discriminant analysis model reviewed the 367 cases in the study and

compared the 15 independent variables to the dependent variable, persistence, six

79

predictors were selected into the discriminant model for analysis. The predictors
chosen were as follows: Catholic (versus non-Catholic); gender; household status,
i.e., number of parents in the home (birth and/or step-parent); father-professional,
i.e., father whose career ﬁeld was designated as professional; race (white); and
highly technical, i.e., career objective designated as highly technical in nature.
These six predictors were selected into the discriminant model because they were
signiﬁcant predictors of persistence at the .05 level and the other nine independent
variables were not. Table 2 displays the results of the discriminant analysis function

used to determine the proﬁles of the persisters and nonpersisters.

Table 2: Results of the discriminant analysis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predictor Step Coefﬁcient WIIkS p-Value
Lambda*
Catholic 1 -0.610 0.96 .012
Gender 2 0.790 0.92 .002
Household status 3 0.411 0.91 .001
Father-professional 4 0.344 0.88 .002
Race-white 5 -0.400 0.87 .002
Highly technical 6 0.270 0.86 .002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients; signiﬁcant at the
.05 level.

According to the discriminant model, those MI-CASHE users (applicants) who

were most likely to persist were:

80

1. Applicants listing their gender as male.

2. Applicants who chose a career objective that could be classiﬁed as
highly technical.

3. Applicants whose father’s occupation could be classiﬁed as
professional.

4. Applicants who resided in a household where two parents were
present.

According to the discriminant model, those Ml-CASHE users (applicants) who
were less likely to persist were:

1. Applicants who listed Catholic as their religious preference.

2. Applimnts who listed their racial background as white.

The above-noted descriptions of Ml-CASHE users who were most likely to
persist and those who were less likelyto persist were main effect ﬁndings rather than
interactive effect ﬁndings. The interactive effect tends to overwhelm the discriminant
analysis model, resulting in too many predictors, saturation of the model, and a
weaker model. Therefore, it is considered better to minimize the number of
predictors but to explain more about them. When tested for signiﬁcance, only the
main effect variables were found to be signiﬁcant. The variables did not interact and
therefore were listed as separate characteristics of persisters or nonpersisters.

The following predictors were not selected to the discriminant model and thus

were not signiﬁcant predictors of persistence: SAT (verbal and math) scores, ACT

81

(composite) scores, grade point average, student’s career objective, handicap,
Protestant, Christian, mother's occupation, black, minority, and age.

The ﬁndings regarding the proﬁles of persisters and nonpersisters can be
related to the student user demographic characteristics. About one-third, or 120
(32%), of the respondents listed Catholic as their religious preference. More males
(58%) than females (41 %) used Ml-CASHE. Approximately 72% of the students
resided in a household with two parents. Slightly more than one-third (36%) of the
users’ fathers were in careers designated as professional. Thirty-eight percent ofthe
users indicated their race as white, and 214 (58%) of the users indicated that they
had chosen a highly technical career objective. There were many more
(approximately two-thirds) nonpersisters (233) than persisters (134).

It is important to remember that the results of the discriminant analysis model
pertained to this study and should not be generalized. For example, if potential
direct users and indirect users who indicated their race as white and indicated their
religious preference as Catholic read the results that those two characteristics
described nonpersisters, they might give up without trying. Not only might they give
up on Ml-CASHE, but possibly might give up on other scholarship opportunities as
well.

Using the discriminant analysis function, 231 of the 367 cases were grouped
or classiﬁed as either persisters or nonpersisters. Not all of the 367 cases could be

classiﬁed as persisters or nonpersisters as 136 cases had at least one missing

82
discriminating variable. The cases were correctly classiﬁed as either persistent or

nonpersistent at 60.8%.

W: To what extent do students who persist through the
application process receive funds?

Answering this question was approached by reviewing the results of the
following questionnaire items: Item 8a-contacting scholarship sponsors, Item 8b—
responses received from sponsors, Item 9a-applications retumed by students to
sponsors, and Items 11b and 1 1 c—if funds were awarded, how many and what was
the total amount. Table 3 shows the number of student contacts made with

agencies sponsoring scholarships and the number of applications students received.

Table 3: Student contacts that led to awards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Cases Percent Total Percent Average
88. Contacts 191 52.0 1,141 — 5.97
8b. Responses 181 49.3 666 58.4 3.68
9a. Returns 134 36.5 5.45 81.8 4.07
11. Awards" 9 2.5 11,850 ' - 1,185

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*The amounts of scholarship dollars ranged from $50 to $2,500. The average
award of $1,185 does not appropriately reﬂect the dollar amounts awarded as four
students received less than $1 ,000, two students received $1,000, and four students
received more than $1,000. The average amount being reported might be
misleading to the reader.

The information reported in Table 3 reﬂects the steps taken in the application
process, indicating student persistence through the entire Ml-CASHE application

process. In row one of the table, Item 83 asked students how many sponsors they

83

had contacted requesting application materials. Ofthe 367 total cases in the study,
191 (52%) made a total of 1,141 contacts with scholarship sponsors. The average
number of contacts per student was 5.97.

In row two of Table 3, Item 8b asked the students to indicate the number of
responses they received from the contacts they made. Of the 191 students who
contacted sponsors, 181 (49.3%) received a total of 666 (58.4%) responses from the
1,141 total contacts made. The students received an average of 3.68 responses
(per student).

In row three of Table 3, Item 93 asked the students to indicate the number of
applications they completed and returned to the scholarship sponsors. Ofthe 181
students who indicated they received responses from the scholarship sponsors, 1 34
(36.5%) students completed and returned a total of 545 (81 .8%) applications. This
reﬂects an average of 4.07 applications per student that were completed and
returned.

In row four of Table 3, Items 11b and 11c asked the students to indicate
whether they had been awarded any scholarship funds and, if yes, how many
scholarships and the total amount of the award(s). Of the 134 students who
persisted through the entire application process, 9 (2.5%) indicated they had been
awarded a total of 10 scholarships. The scholarships ranged in dollar amounts of
$50 to $2,500, for a total of $11,850 scholarship dollars awarded. The reader is

probably aware that even though an average dollar award amount was reported in

84
Table 3 ($1,185), no student received an average amount. Each student received

a set amount (see Table 4).

Table 4: Total amount of awards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

f Amount of Award Number Percent
$ 50 1 .3
$ 500 1 .3
$ 750 1 .3
$ 900 1 .3
$1,000 2 .5
$1,450 1 .3
$1,700 1 .3
$2,000 1 ‘ .3
$2,500 1 .3
Missing 357 97.2

Total 367 100.0

 

 

 

 

The questionnaire items listed in Table 3 referred to the number of contacts
made by users (Item 8a), the number of responses users received from the sponsors
(Item 8b), the number of users who returned applications to the sponsors (Item 9a),
and the number of users who persisted through the entire application process and
received awards (Items 11b and 11c). The focus of the questionnaire items was on

the issue of persistence and indicated the necessary step-by-step progression that

85

a student had to persist through in order to be selected into the pool of applicants
and thus potentially be awarded scholarship dollars. Persisting through the entire
application process did not guarantee that the student would be awarded funds or
that the student would be selected into the pool of potential candidates. However,
persisting through the entire process was the only way a student could be
considered as a candidate, and the only way in which the student could have
increased his or her chances of being successful using Ml-CASHE.

The results indicated that there was a small number (134) of students who
persisted through the entire process and an even smaller number (9) who were
awarded funds. One factor to note is that even though this study included only
students from Michigan, those same students competed nationwide for scholarship
dollars. This study was not extended to contacting the scholarship sponsors and
inquiring about the number of students who were in their application pools or the
extent or intensity of the competition for funds.

Reseamﬂuestignjg: Does use of Ml-CASHE increase awareness of
ﬁnancial aid sources?

Whether use of MI-CASHE increased awareness of ﬁnancial aid sources was
a question answered by the high school counselors and ﬁnancial aid officers during
the telephone Interviews, or the qualitative phase of the study. The responses to this
item were mixed. Because Ml-CASHE is not a primary source of student ﬁnancial
aid, it could be assumed that students had been informed of the primary sources ﬁrst
and learned about MI-CASHE later. However, some parents and students made

their own assumptions that their family income was too high, or that middle-income

86

families have a difﬁcult time gaining ﬁnancial aid, or that the student needed some
other qualiﬁcation in order to be considered as a ﬁnancial aid recipient. As a result,
they looked to secondary sources. One such secondary source could be a
computerized ﬁnancial aid service.

Speciﬁcally, the Ml-CASHE ofﬁce provided the primary ﬁnancial aid
information along with the MI-CASHE application materials. The counselors and
ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers agreed that information should be handed out together.

To further answer this question, the ﬁnancial aid officers were asked to reﬂect
on their perceptions of whether Ml-CASHE is an effective search service. The
responses from the ﬁnancial aid officers yielded mixed results, split between “yes”
and ”maybe.” Most of the aid ofﬁcers thought that using MI-CASHE could help with
awareness, but what would help more was actual awarding of funds from using MI-
CASHE. Testimonies from award recipients would provide incentive for other
students to use the service. As one aid ofﬁcer commented, "Students think, ’What’s
the use?" Awareness may not be enough incentive to pursue and persist through
the application process.

Another concern voiced by the aid officers wasthat awareness of the ﬁnancial
aid process and system was one possible outcome of using Ml-CASHE, but the
accompanying papenlvork probably deterred many students from persisting through
the application process. Students indicated they felt inundated by college entrance

forms and ﬁnancial aid paperwork. According to the aid officers, in effect, the

87

awareness element lost its effect because nothing more was done with the
awareness of the knowledge derived from using Ml-CASHE.

A third issue discussed by aid ofﬁcers was whether parents’ knowledge of
ﬁnancial aid was increased due to using MI-CASHE. Many of the aid ofﬁcers were
involved with presenting ﬁnancial aid information to high school students and their
parents, both on an individual basis and to groups. One of the aid ofﬁcers said that
parents and students always were looking for free funds, and the presence of a
search service did pique some interest. Eventually, there was the realization of the
necessary balance between pie-in-the-sky funds and the reality of the competition
for scholarship dollars or what was really available. Parents had mentioned reading
statements that millions (or billions) of scholarship dollars go unclaimed each year,
and they wanted to know how to tap into those sources. One aid ofﬁcer’s
perceptions reﬂected the idea of parents and students looking for a quick ﬁx, hoping
that computerized search services could provide that. Other ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers
were skeptical toward MI-CASH E.

Aid ofﬁcers commented that MI—CASHE needed to be publicized more widely
throughout Michigan in order to increase awareness and usage. One aid officer
deﬁned awareness as ”being able to access information in a timely manner.“ Thus,
greater awareness of Ml-CASHE could affect awareness of ﬁnancial aid in general
and encourage potential students to start earlier in their search for ways to fund their

educaﬁon.

88

W: To what extent do students who have used Ml-
CASHE perceive the program to be effective?

None of the student participants stated that they perceived MI-CASHE to be
effective, based on their own usage and results, as none of these students were
awarded funds. When the students were asked whether the processing fee of $15
was too high, about right, or low, the majority of the students said they understood
the need for a fee but thought $15 was too high for what they received, or, from the
students’ perspective, what they did not receive.

One student related that she had not received a search list from the MI-
CASHE ofﬁce. When questioned further, she indicated she had received a list but
had assumed the MI-CASHE ofﬁce had forwarded her application on to the
sponsors. After not hearing from any sponsors, she assumed she had not been
selected. Due to her lack of understanding of the process, she did not persist and
was not in a position to receive an award as a result of using MI-CASH E. Thus, she
expressed dissatisfaction with using the Ml-CASHE program.

Even though student users did not state directly that Ml-CASHE was not
effective, none of them stated that they thought it was. Six of the ten students who
were interviewed had heard about MI-CASHEfrom their high school counselor. One
student reported that the counselOr gave the Ml-CASHE application forms to each
senior. This same student reported that the school agreed to pay the postage, and
ifmore than half of the class decided to send in a Ml-CASHE application, the school

would pay half of the total cost. The student related the counselor’s telling them that

89
they would receive ”phenomenal results.“ However, this student was not happy with
her results.

Another student said it cost him more money to ﬁnd out about what was not
available to him. He did not receive the search results in time to meet the deadlines,
and he was disappointed that only sponsors’ addresses were listed, and not
telephone numbers.

WM: To what extent to direct users (students) perceive M I-
CASHE as worthwhile in terms of costs and beneﬁts?

Participants did not complain about the $15 processing fee for Ml-CASHE
use. Most of the students said they could understand the necessity for a fee, in
general, but they did not think it was worthwhile for the sources they received. One
student thought $5 would have been enough for what she received. All of the
students who were interviewed stated that most of the deadline dates had passed
by the time they received their results. Because only two of the ten students who
were interviewed applied to any of the sources they received, the majority of
students in this study did not incur any costs beyond the processing fee.

Some comments were written on the questionnaire that reﬂected students’
thoughts on the costs and beneﬁts. For example. one student wrote, ”I received no
ﬁnancial awards. It was a waste of valuable time and money!"

WM: What are some indicators of client or direct user
satisfaction?

Three hundred ﬁfty-ﬁve student users responded to Item 13 on the survey,

which asked how satisﬁed they were in using Ml-CASHE. Twenty-four percent of

90

the users indicated being somewhat satisﬁed or satisﬁed with the results of using Ml-
CASHE. Forty-eight percent of the users indicated they were very dissatisﬁed or
somewhat dissatisﬁed, and 25% indicated being neither satisﬁed nor dissatisﬁed
with using MI-CASHE.

Two other questions accompanied the question regarding user satisfaction.
Survey Item 12 asked whether the user would use MI-CASHE again, and Item 14
asked whether the user would recommend MI-CASHE to someone else. Half(51%)
responded they would use it again, and a higher percentage, 61%, responded that
they would recommend it to someone else.

Questionnaire Item 7 asked the users how much time they thought they spent
contacting sponsors. Forty-nine percent responded that they spent between two and
ﬁve hours. Eighteen percent responded that they spent more than ﬁve hours.
Approximately one-third (123 or 34%) of the users did not respond to this question.

In addition to the questionnaire items regarding user or client satisfaction with
MI-CASHE, the questionnaire also allowed for comments. Those comments
consisted primarily of the following: students’ concerns over the deadline dates
being passed by the time they received their source listing; upon receiving the
source listing, students found they did not match the sponsors’ qualiﬁcations, and
thus the sources did not apply to their needs; and sponsoring agencies did not

respond to the students’ requests for applications. The comments are found in

Appendix B.

91
WNW. Summarizing the results for Research

Question 1 and the subquestions (1a through 1f), the direct or student users of MI-
CASHE offered mixed reactions, as indicated by their responses to and perceptions
of the items, of the effectiveness of using Ml-CASHE, of the persisters or
nonpersisters who used Ml-CASH E, of user satisfaction with Ml-CASH E, of whether
using MI-CASHE increased awareness of ﬁnancial aid, and of the costs and beneﬁts
of using MI-CASH E. As the users' responses were mixed, so were the reasons they
gave. However, the patterns that emerged brought a few points to light.

One point is that students received scholarship information with expired
deadline dates. That concern could be eradicated or lessened by informing users
of the impending deadline dates when they ﬁrst inquire about Ml-CASHE and how
not to miss deadline dates. Then the students could decide whether and when to
use it and the pitfalls of their choice of timing.

Another point included the notion, as stated by more than one student, that
"using MI-CASHE was a waste of time and money.“ Students expressed their
dissatisfaction based on not receiving monetary assistance in exchange for the fee
they paid and their time in completing the initial application. Some students
complained about the expired deadline dates; some said the source list was not
matched with their characteristics, making them ineligible to apply; and others
admitted they did not bother to do anything with the list they received. They did not
complete the entire application process. They used MI-CASHE as a means to an

end, but not to the extent necessary for potential success in using it. Finally, a few

92
users stated that they did not want to write the essay required for eligibility, nor
would they pay an application fee to the sponsor.
As those. are the main points or themes that were described by the users,
recommendations could be developed to assist those who developed the search
service to enhance the product and service, resulting in greater assistance to the

users. The recommendations are listed at the end of Chapter V.

Beseardnﬂuesﬂoni
How effective is MI-CASHE as perceived by indirect users (parents of
users, high school counselor, and college and university ﬁnancial aid
ofﬁcers?
Overall, the indirect users of MI-CASHE offered mixed responses that tended
toward positive or a willing-to-wait-and-see approach to whether they perceived MI-
CASHE as an effective tool to ﬁnd sources of scholarship information for student

users.

W: To what extent do indirect users perceive Ml-CASHE
as effective in locating sources of scholarship information?

Ten parents of student users were interviewed. Two of the ten were fathers
and eight were mothers. One-half of those interviewed stated that they were
somewhat satisﬁed with the results of the Ml-CASHE search, and the other ﬁve were
mixed. Six of the parents said they would use Ml-CASHE again, particularly those
who had younger children who were planning to go to college; two said they would

not use MI-CASHE again, and two were not sure.

93

One of the fathers related that his daughter had a grade point average of 3.00
and was not involved in a lot of extracurricular activities. He thought that
combination of characteristics might have hurt her eligibility when applying for
scholarships. He described his younger son as more outgoing and involved, and
said he thought his son might beneﬁt from using MI-CASHE more than his daughter
had.

Another parent’s perceptions were that more scholarships were available for
students whose ﬁnancial situation designated them as needy, and even though a
sponsor might have stated the scholarship was based on scholastic achievement,
she thought it was not. Finally, she reﬂected that, even though they had not
received any scholarship funds, it had been a learning process.

In general, the reactions or perceptions were mixed. If there had been
tangible results in the form of an award received, no matter what the amount, the
lasting perceptions might have been more deﬁnitive.

The ovenrvhelming majority of counselors and ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers responded
that they had not seen any of their students' Ml-CASHE search results (scholarship
match lists) and had not heard of students being awarded funds from using Ml-
CASHE. In contrast, from the perspective of the parents and students, it seemed
that satisfaction was based more on tangible results than on another opportunity to
seek out funding sources and using Ml-CASHE as being ”worth a try.”

From the perspective of the counselors and ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers, there was

concern for the legitimacy of the service and who was offering it. They wanted to be

94

able to recommend a reputable source to students and parents. At the same time,
they wanted to assist students in their search for funding for college and also wanted
to steer students in the direction of a service that was worth their time and money
and yielded positive results. In general, the ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers and high school
counselors expressed positive reactions regarding the MHEAAILA’s offering Ml-
CASHE. They expressed hope that students found it a useful and worthwhile source
of information for locating scholarships for which they could apply.

The ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers in the study viewed the effectiveness of Ml-CASHE
from a number of different vantage points. Some thought it was effective because
it increased students’ and parents’ awareness of ﬁnancial aid and searching for
funds. But one officer added that he was not sure whether Ml-CASHE increased the
awareness of the ﬁnancial aid system to the general public. He stated, "People have
to take initiative. Many wait until the last minute.” Another aid ofﬁcer thought Ml-
CASHE was potentially effective but that it was ineffective when there was no
awareness of how to get started with it. In addition, he lamented that many people
were put off by more paperwork. The aid ofﬁcers were interested in hearing proof
that funds actually were awarded as a result of using Ml-CASHE.

WM: To what extent do parents of users perceive Ml-
CASHE as worthwhile in terms of costs and beneﬁts?

Parents of student users said the MI-CASHE processing fee of $15 was
“reasonable” or ”about right.” Only two of the parents who were interviewed thought

that the fee was too high; both of them said it would not have seemed too high if

95
their student had received scholarship funds. Parents noted also that postage was
an expense.

The other type of cost involved with using Ml-CASHE was that of time,
because using MI-CASHE was only one of several methods parents employed to
search for ﬁnancial aid funds. Parents reported that they met with their student’s
high school counselor, they attended ﬁnancial aid presentations at their student’s
high school, and they visited the library and searched through ﬁnancial aid
directories for information on scholarship sources. One parent reported trying to
contact a search service, but "couldn’t ﬁnd one to work with.” He said he was willing
to pay the $200 or $300 because he believed it would be worth it if his son received
awards. Another parent stated she had listened to a private company
representative, who described their search service and charged $250 for it. She
decided not to use the service.

Also, in relation to time spent searching for all types of ﬁnancial aid
information, parents estimated spending ten hours, on average. One parent said he
spent "a long time.” He started a year in advance. He attended ﬁnancial aid
seminars and talked with friends who had been through the process of searching for
scholarship information.

Although none of the parents reported receiving any awards from using Ml-
CASHE, eight of the ten parents who were interviewed believed it was worth their
time and money to have used MI-CASHE. Eight of the ten said they either had

recommended or would recommend MI-CASHE to other people.

96

When the ten ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers in the study were asked whether they had
received feedback from students who had used MI-CASH E, one reported a negative
response and one reported a positive response. None of the other eight aid ofﬁcers
had received any feedback. The negative response reported a student’s
disappointment that the match list provided no new sources as the applicant had
done other searching and was informed of the same sources. The positive response
reported a student’s pleasure at having a list of sources made available. None of the
aid officers commented on a student’s match list. Only two of them had actually
seen a list, and neither one could remember anything speciﬁc about it. Almost all
of the aid ofﬁcers in this study were aid directors and were not in contact with
students on a regular basis. However, if they were directors at one of the smaller
schools, the chances were greater that they had more direct contact with the
students. That lack of regular contact might explain. in part, why eight of the ten aid
ofﬁcers participating in the study had not received any feedback from students
regarding their perceptions of the effectiveness of MI-CASHE.

Regarding the aid ofﬁcers’ perceptions ’of whether they thought Ml-CASHE
was worthwhile in terms of costs and beneﬁts, they all responded that the $15
processing fee was an adequate amount. One aid officer thought the fee actually
might be low and that it probably did not cover the administrative costs incurred by
the Ml-CASHE ofﬁce. Another aid ofﬁcer reﬂected that the fee might be considered
high if the resources on the match list could be found in the ﬁnancial aid ofﬁce or in

the library.

97

Some of the aid ofﬁcers expressed interest in hearing testimonials from
students who had used Ml-CASHE and had been successful in actually receiving
awards. Speciﬁcally, the aid ofﬁcers wanted to know about Michigan students’
having received awards.

In general, most of the aid ofﬁcers perceived MI-CASHE to be an effective
tool for locating information on sources of aid, whereas a few were not sure whether
itwas effective or not. They responded with two main points: (a) that the processing
fee was reasonable and (b) that it gave them a source to offer students interested
in searching for alternative funding information.

The high school counselors who participated in the study offered some
additional perspectives on the effectiveness of M l-CASHE. The counselors reported
that MI-CASHE was effective if the database was not missing any scholarship
information—if it was all-encompassing and was kept up to date. Some counselors
stated that Ml-CASHE had to be credible, reasonably priced, and have information
that could not be found in the library or that students could not obtain free. There
had to be relative ease in ﬁlling out the application(s) as the counselors found
parents and students often were "boggled" by all the forms they had to ﬁll out.
Counselors also wanted to know that students who had used Ml-CASHE actually
had received awards. They wanted to hear positive feedback, especially from
Michigan students who had received scholarship dollars. As the ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers

also mentioned, the counselors were interested in documentation of award recipients

98

to whom they could point, in talking to future student users, as a tangible sign of their
deﬁnition of the effectiveness of using MI-CASHE.

W: What are some indicators of indirect user satisfac-
ﬁon?

The high school counselors answered questions regarding their satisfaction
with using MI-CASHE with mixed responses and some skepticism. For example,
one counselor told students, ”If it costs more than MI-CASHE ($15), don’t do it. I am
very skeptical of guarantees. I can guarantee anyone ﬁve resources. As counselors
we get blasted with questions from parents." Other counselors agreed with the
concern about companies that guarantee students a certain number of sources, and
especially those that guarantee funds. Another counselor said he told parents and
students to consider the cost of any search service and advised them to check for
scholarship information in the high school career center and the library. Three of the
counselors noted that parents seldom called to inquire about search services.

The counselors were asked whether they thought it was worth a student’s
time to complete the Ml-CASHE application process. All ten of them believed itwas
worth a try, and one thought students had at least a 50-50 chance of being awarded
funds. Several of the counselors, however, thought that a student’s chances were
enhanced ifthe student had above-average grades.

As indirect users of Ml-CASHE, the counselors were not deﬁnitive on their
degree of user satisfaction. Few of the counselors knew of students who had used
the service. As a group, they said they discouraged students from using more

expensive search services and routinely did not endorse private companies.

99

However, the counselors had contact with other types of scholarship information
services and did promote usage of the ones that were free of charge. Some of those
companies offered software programs to the schools at no charge, which the schools
set up in their libraries for students to use on their own time. The beneﬁts of those
services were not having a lag time in receiving information (as students did when
they used Ml-CASH E) and, of course, no cost involved. Not all schools took
advantage of those offers.

Financial aid ofﬁcers expressed their initial impressions of Ml-CASHE during
the telephone interviews. The aid ofﬁcers commented positively in terms of the MI-
CASHE program development and operation, the reasonable processing fee, and
the sponsorship of MI-CASHE by the MHEAAILA, which they believed to be a
credible sponsor. One aid ofﬁcer described it as a useful service, a time-saver that
offered resources to families, as students have a tendency not to go to the library to
search through the ﬁnancial aid directories for scholarship information. However,
some skepticism was also voiced. Aid officers had been aware of search services
for a number of years and were wary of those that charged more than the $15 MI-
CASHE fee. One aid ofﬁcer said he did not endorse any proﬁt-making scholarship
search services, Ml-CASHE aside, as he was not sure which ones were good or
bad.

Parents were asked for their comments regarding their satisfaction with the
results of their students’ Ml-CASHE match list. One parent reported being satisﬁed,
ﬁve reported they were somewhat satisﬁed, two expressed disappointment with the

results, and two were not sure as they could not remember their student’s match list.

100

Eight of the ten parents stated that their student did not apply to any of the
' scholarship sponsors, and two thought their students did apply to at least one
sponsor. None of their students were awarded funds from using Ml-CASHE. The
parents reported that match list deadline dates had passed by the time their student
received the list or that their student did not meet the qualifying criteria required by
the scholarship-sponsoring agency. One parent reported that his student was
required to write an essay as part of the application process and chose not to do so.
Another parent said the sponsor required an application fee, which deterred them
from applying.

WW. To the indirect users, Ml-CASHE
represented a servicethat had potential beneﬁts and could potentially be an effective
tool when used to search for scholarship information sources. The parents,
counselors, and ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers were all interested in knowing that students had
been awarded funds as a result of using Ml-CASHE. In effect, they were
considering the costs of using MI-CASHE and expecting or wanting some beneﬁts

in return.

Researdlﬂuestionj

What lessons can be learned from Ml-CASHE concerning public policy
issues?

As a review, the primary purpose of this case study was to conduct a policy
analysis and to determine whether the Ml-CASHE initiative did what it claimed: Was

it effective in providing information on alternative funding sources for Michigan

101

residents that led to awards for postsecondary education, and thus increased their
means of access? A number of lessons can be learned from this study, including
(a) learning how people become aware of Ml-CASHE as one source ofﬁnancial aid
information, (b) leaning how people perceive the concept of ﬁnancial aid and of
search services, and (c) learning how people perceive the effectiveness of such
services. The following research questions focused on some of the lessons to be
learned from the study.

W: What lessons are learned from this case study

concerning policy issues surrounding provisions for access to funding

sources and higher education?

The indirect users were asked to consider whether they preferred that the
money used to support the Ml-CASHE program could be better used in some way
other than to support the Ml-CASHE program. The responses from the ten parents
were mixed. About one-third of them thought it was an appropriate way or an
acceptable way to use funds. The other two-thirds thought there probably was
another way to use the funds, but they were not sure exactly how. One parent
suggested that the funds that were used to support Ml-CASHE could instead be
used by the State Ofﬁce of Student Financial Assistance (OSFA), to offer more of
the ﬁnancial aid information seminars that OSFA currently offers at the local high
schools.

The high school counselors and ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers were asked to respond

to the same question regarding their thoughts on other uses for the funds that

support the Ml-CASHE program operation. Eight of the ten counselors thought itwas

102

a good use of funds. They reported that Ml-CASHE ﬁlled a need for students and
families at this time, unless something better appeared to replace it. One counselor
remarked that "students need to do some searching on their own. They need to put
some importance on it and take interest, see what it takes.” Another counselor
thought it was a good program for a student to take the initiative and responsibility
to follow the directions and work through the program. Two counselors declined to
comment as they did not think they knew enough about the program to assess the
use of the funds for the MI-CASHE program.

All of the ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers supported the use of the funds for the MI-
CASHE program, although some ofthe aid ofﬁcers remarked that the campus-based
programs (i.e., Adult Part-Time Grant, Michigan Educational Opportunity Grant, and
Michigan Work-Study) could always use more funds. However, one-half of the aid
ofﬁcers said they wanted to learn the results of the evaluation and wanted to know
more about the costs of the program. Some of the ofﬁcers wondered whether the
$15 processing fee was enough to sustain the program. One of the aid ofﬁcers said
that the advantage is that MI-CASHE is offered through the state, and therefore he
expected more from it than if it were an independent or for-proﬁt entity.

W: What are the costs and beneﬁts to the MHEAAILA
in terms of providing the Ml-CASHE program for the residents of Michigan?

The MHEAAILA agreed to sponsor the Ml-CASHE program, intending for it
to become as self-supporting as possible. The MHEAAILA provided the funding for
the Ofﬁce of Student Financial AsSistance (OSFA) to enter into a lease agreement

with CASHE-NCSL and for all start-up costs, e.g., stafﬁng, printing, postage, and

103

other administrative costs. The costs did not account for professional staff time
involved with preparing the program materials and other indirect costs. In 1993, the
OSFA went before the Michigan legislature and requested an appropriation to
support the Ml-CASHE program. The legislature approved the request as a
restricted appropriation included in and relating to Section 210 of the Department of
Education Appropriation Act. The proposed boilerplate amendment read as follows:

Sec. 210. The department may receive and expend funds in addition to those

authorized in section 101 for providing information on sources of ﬁnancial aid

to citizens and for conducting training and orientation workshops and
seminars that are consistent with the programmatic mission of the individual

unit sponsoring or coordinating the program. Not later than January 2, 1994,

the department shall provide the senate and house appropriations

subcommittees responsible for the department’s budget and the senate and
house ﬁscal agencies with a report indicating the program, number of
participants, costs incurred, and income received for the Immediately

preceding ﬁscal year. (OSFA, August 25, 1993)

The ﬁrst year’s (1 993-94 ﬁscal year) appropriation was between $75,000 and
$100,000. The second appropriation (1994-95 ﬁscal year) allowed for up to
$350,000 for MI-CASHE operations. The MHEAAILA was committed to supporting
Ml-CASHE even though it would take some time for it to become self-supporting.
However, the OSFA and MHEAAILA were also well aware that funding could be cut
at any time and thus intended for the processing fee to offset the Ml-CASHE
operating costs. (See Appendix F for supporting documentation.) With that in mind,
consider the following information regarding MI-CASHE program operating costs.
Currently, one contract year with CASH E-NCSL costs the MHEAAILA $22,000. No
speciﬁc line-item budget for operating MI-CASHE was available, but based on

- miscellaneous information garnered from the OSFA agency, conservative estimates

104

imply that the ofﬁce would have had to encumber a minimum of $75,000 for routine
operating costs including salaries, supplies, promotional materials, and applications.
ordered in amounts of 25,000 to 50,000 two times per year and an additional 10,000
to 20,000 once per year, telephone, postage, copying, and so on. Data from the
study showed that nine students were awarded a total of $11,850 in scholarship
funds as a result of applying to MI-CASHE sponsors during the ﬁrst ﬁve months MI-
CASHE operated. Thus, a minimum of $97,000 was disbursed for operating MI-
CASHE, and $42,000 was credited as a result of the approximately 2,800 users
paying the $15 processing fee. If, by the end of the ﬁrst year, there were 5,000
users, MI-CASHE would have brought in $75,000 and not matched the initial
appropriation. Thus, the ﬁrst-year results indicated that Ml-CASHE was not self-
supporting, suggesting that a review of whether Ml-CASHE is worthwhile in terms
of costs and beneﬁts should be undertaken.

When the executive director of the OSFA and the program director of the
Support Services Programs unit were interviewed, they discussed whether it was
worthwhile to offer Ml-CASHE in terms of costs and beneﬁts. One of the directors
responded that It was difficult to conduct an analysis because MI-CASHE was a
public service, and they could not expect to break even or account for every aspect
of the operational costs.

Both of the directors referred to the existing ambiguity concerned with the
costs and beneﬁts of offering MI-CASHE. It was primarily a public service, and yet

they wanted it to become as self-supporting as possible without becoming a

105
businessventure. One of the directors said he thought MI-CASHE would eventually
deﬁne itself as either a business or a public service. This same director wondered
how policymakers or legislators viewed Ml-CASHE. He also wondered whether or
how soon some outer company would produce a better product or service and
overshadow the Ml-CASHE operation.

As one of the directors considered the costs of operating Ml-CASHE, he
stated that he believed that Ml-CASHE offered the ”most comprehensive source of
aid” and that the $15 processing fee was "not a deterrent for someone who was
serious about applying.” The overall mission of offering MI-CASHE was to provide
residents of Michigan with opportunities for postsecondary education. He
questioned the administrative burden of operating the program and whether that
could be reduced as the program became more routine and needed fewer
professional staff.

The purpose of the Ml-CASHE program is focused on providing information
on altematlve and private funding sources available to assist students searching for
funds for college. In addition, the OSFA is developing a Michigan-speciﬁc database
to accompany CASHE, the national database, hoping it will be an additional beneﬁt
to Michigan residents. The idea behind developing a database of speciﬁcally
Michigan-sponsored scholarships is that student residents of Michigan would have
access to more locally sponsored funding sources and would have increased

chances of being awarded aid.

106
Summary

The following key points provide a summary of the ﬁndings from this study,
which included the statistical data from the questionnaire, the development of a
proﬁle of the students who were classiﬁed as persisters and nonpersisters, and the
users’ perceptions of the effectiveness of Ml-CASH E. The ﬁndings were a result of
both quantitative and qualitative analyses. The main points are as follows:

Seven hundred eighty questionnaires were mailed to students who had used
Ml—CASHE during the initial months of operation: November 1993 through March
1994. Of the 780, 367 (47) questionnaires were returned. Ofthe 367 students who
returned questionnaires, 134 (36%) had persisted through the entire Ml-CASHE
application process. Of those 134, 9 (6.7%) reported that they had been awarded
funds.

Using a discriminant model of analysis, it was found that those Ml-CASHE
users (applicants) most likely to persist were (a) applicants listing their gender as
male, (b) applicants who chose a career objective that could be classiﬁed as highly
technical, (c) applicants whose father's occupation could be classiﬁed as
professional, and (d) applicants who resided in a household where two parents were
present. According to the discriminant model, those Ml-CASHE users (applicants)
less likely to persist were (a) applicants who listed Catholic as their religious
preference and (b) applicants who listed their racial background as white.

The ﬁndings from the interviews conducted with students, parents, high

school counselors, and ﬁnancial administrators regarding their perceptions of the

107

effectiveness of MI-CASHE are as follows. The student users did not perceive Ml-
CASHE as effectiVe. None of the students who were interviewed completed the
entire Ml-CASHE application process. Students stated that they were deterred from
going further with the application process due to receiving search report information
. that had expired deadline dates, required them to write an essay, or required an
application fee. However, the students did say they would recommend Ml-CASHE
to others to try.

Overall, the indirect users of M l-CASHE, parents, high school counselors, and
ﬁnancial aid administrators, adopted a positive or neutral perception of the
effectiveness of the scholarship search service. They offered comments that
indicated they were willing to “wait and see" whether Ml-CASHE was effective and
worthwhile to the user in terms of costs and beneﬁts. Most of the counselors and
ﬁnancial aid administrators had very little experience using MI-CASHE (directly or
indirectly). Some had not yet seen a scholarship match list, and none was aware of
any student’s having been awarded funds as a result of using Ml-CASH E. All were
supportive of making scholarship information available and easy to access. In
general, the respondents remarked that the $15 processing fee was an adequate
amount to pay for the product and service. The fee was compared to that of a
college application, which ranges between $15 and $35. Those users who were
most dissatisﬁed with the search service were the only ones who indicated that the
$15 fee was too high. Finally, in all cases, Ml-CASHE was used only after pursuing

the traditional route for student ﬁnancial aid. The indirect users indicated their use

108

of Ml-CASHE was, in effect, "to leave no stone unturned" in the search for college
funds. To the contrary, direct users indicated a greater 'sense of disappointment
regarding the application process, as well as of not receiving awards. It seemed that
students or direct users wanted to use a search process that required very little
persistence on their part but would yield positive results. That comment bears out
the ﬁnding from the questionnaire that only 134 of the 367 direct users persisted
through the entire MI-CASHE application process. Thus, it would appear that
persistence does play a role in searching for information regarding scholarship funds

and actually achieving the desired results.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Within this ﬁnal chapter, the following topics are addressed: (a) a brief
summary of what MI-CASHE is, (b) a review of the study questions, (0) a discussion
of several key policy issues raised by the study, (d) a list of suggestions for
improving Ml-CASHE if the Ofﬁce of Student Financial Assistance continues to offer
the service, and (e) a list of suggestions for further research. The chapter begins
with a summary of what the Ml-CASHE program is.

MI-CASHE, Michigan-College Aid Sources for Higher Education, is a
computerized ﬁnancial assistance information program. The system locates sources
of scholarships, grants, internships, fellowships, work study, and a variety of loan
programs for both undergraduate and graduate students. The service provides
individual listings of programs from private sponsors according to student
characteristics, e.g., academic standing, major areas of study, career goals, and so
on. Once the student submits his or her application including a $15 processing fee,
the system conducts a matching process (a search) with the student’s characteristics
and sponsoring agencies’ qualifying criteria. The result of the search is a list of

matches of potential sources of aid. The match list is mailed to the student to use

109

1 10
to contact sponsoring agencies and apply to the aid sources. The Ml-CASHE
program does not guarantee that a student will be awarded funds as a result of using
the database service. However, it does provide students with information about aid
sources for which they are eligible to apply. The sponsoring agencies decide who
will be awarded funds.
, Summary

Within this study there exist some conceptual tensions about whether Ml-
CASHE is perceived as effective and does what it claims to do, and whether it is
worthwhile in terms of costs and beneﬁts. In addition, there is the issue of the role
of public policymakers and their support for increasing opportunities for access to
higher education. While attempting to gain a perspective on the tension within the
topic, the researcher compiled the best data possible; however, not all of the
information was at the researcher’s disposal. The summary is organized around the
three main research questions: (1) How effective was Ml-CASHE as perceived by
direct users (students) who used it? (2) How effective was Ml-CASHE as perceived
by indirect users (parents of users, high school counselors, and college and
university ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers)? and (3) What lessons can be learned from MI-
CASHE concerning public policy issues? The research questions are the probes
with which to examine the tension as to whether MI-CASHE is effective and
worthwhile, and whether the lessons learned revealed data supporting or not

supporting Ml-CASHE.

111

In this study, the goal of the direct user (the student) was achieving access
to higher education, and the goal of the indirect users (parents, high school
counselors, and ﬁnancial aid administrators) was assisting the user to gain access
to higher education. For the purposes of this study, persistence was not deﬁned as
the personal characteristic necessary to motivate the users and indirect users into
pursuing their goal. Rather, persistence was viewed as an action taken toward
accomplishing a speciﬁc task, that of using Ml-CASHE as an action taken to achieve
the goal of access to higher education opportunities. One of the research questions
attempted to ﬁnd out whether using MI-CASHE was beneﬁcial to the direct and
indirect users. The ﬁndings were mixed and left the general impression that all users
were waiting for positive results—they wanted to know that funds were awarded, how
many awards were given, and how much they were worth.

Based on the response to the research questions, it appears that the ﬁndings
were mixed. One possible explanation for this is that the MI-CASHE program was
a new endeavor offered by the Michigan Higher Education Assistance Authority/
Loan Authority (MHEAAILA) and the Ofﬁce of Student Financial Assistance (OSFA).
(The software program itself was not a totally new product; rather, it was new for the
MHEAAILA to offer to the Michigan public.) The Ml-CASHE staff had many things
to learn about the program, product, and service. The evaluation-study was
undertaken to learn more about those areas and, as a result of the ﬁndings from the
study, offer suggestions for the future of Ml-CASHE. But offering Ml-CASHE was

a way for the OSFA-MHEAAILA to cover all facets of information on aid sources

112

from the primary sources of state and federal programs to the secondary sources or
supplemental sources that were available to the public. Offering Ml-CASHE was
another way for the MHEAAILA to reach out and do as much for the public as
feasibly possible. Ml-CASHE began as a project within the Support Services
Programs unit of OSFA-MHEAAILA, which is the unit that performs outreach
services, with hopes of its becoming an institutional program.

Now that the MI-CASHE evaluation is concluded, the users have access to
the ﬁndings. Their judgments on the effectiveness of Ml-CASHE might change
once they know the numbers of students who were actually awarded funds. Some
users will remember that they were among the ﬁrst in Michigan to use MI-CASHE
and will allow for the unsettled features of a new program, and others probably will
not. However, if the Ml-CASHE staff conducts periodic evaluations, which, over
time, will indicate trends in program use, whether positive or negative, they will be

able to implement changes where necessary.

8' [SI I Q I' IS [El I'

The main focus of this study was to determine whether using Ml-CASHE was
effective in terms of costs and beneﬁts. The determination was based on the
perceptions gathered from surveying and interviewing direct users (students), as
well as perceptions gathered as a result of interviewing indirect users (parents, high
school counselors, and ﬁnancial aid administrators). The study did not include

gathering perceptions from legislators, but the discussion did include policy

113
implications for legislators to consider when determining appropriations for student
ﬁnancial aid.

Before continuing this discussion, the following issue needs to be clariﬁed for
the reader. The terms ”beneﬁcial“ and “access” were not mentioned as frequently
as the term ”persistence” was in the ﬁndings of the study. That is because the main
focus of the study was on persistence in using Ml-CASHE as a vehicle to pursue
access to funds for higher education. Without some degree of persistence, users
and indirect users of Ml-CASHE would not have been able to determine whether
using Ml-CASHE was beneﬁcial for them in terms of costs and locating funds that
would provide access to higher education opportunities. From the user’s
perspective, if using MI-CASHE was beneﬁcial, then the user could seek access to

the educational institution of their choice.

W: How effective was MI-CASHE as perceived by
students who used it?

It was found that, of the 367 users who returned surveys, 134 persisted
through the entire Ml-CASHE application process and 9 were awarded funds. Of
the 367 users who responded to the survey, half (50.7%) indicated they would use
Ml-CASHE again. At the same time, when it came to indicating user satisfaction, a
total of 47% indicated being either very disappointed or somewhat disappointed with
their Ml-CASHE experience. Also, 224 (61%) of the 367 respondents indicated they
would recommend MI-CASHE to others. Some of the users offered negative
comments regarding their perceptions of the Ml-CASHE program. The most often

stated complaint was that, by the time the student received the scholarship

114

information list, the application deadline dates had expired. That was one of the
limitations of the program and of the timing of the initial start-up of the Ml-CASHE
program. Ml-CASHE became operational on November 1, 1993, and deadline dates
started as early as September 1, 1993. However, deadline dates for some
scholarships were as late as March 1, 1994. Every student’s match list—scholarship
information list-was different, and there was no way to predeterrnine how many
scholarship application deadlines a user might miss. As a result, the effectiveness
of Ml-CASHE had a strike against it from the start, whether the students were
persistent or not. (As an aside, in the event that a user contacted the ofﬁce and
complained, the Ml-CASHE ofﬁce did offer to run another match list or granted the
request for a refund.)

When interviewing students who used Ml-CASH E, the ﬁndings indicated that
they wanted to know what beneﬁts they were going to gain once they had committed
their time and money to using it: Would it be beneﬁcial or worthwhile to them, and
would they gain access to opportunities for higher education? Students who had
gained access to higher education reported using it as another source in addition to
their ﬁnancial aid package. Students who had gained access (been accepted) but
had not been awarded ﬁnancial aid reported they were looking for any aid anywhere.
Even though there were those students who wondered why they should bother,
other students, parents, and counselors said, "Why not give it a try?"

mm: How effective is MI-CASHE as perceived by indirect

users (parents of users, high school counselor, and college and university
ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers?

115

According to the ﬁndings from the telephone interviews with parents,
counselors, and ﬁnancial aid administrators, the MI-CASHE database does offer
sources of scholarship information, but the most important factor is whether students
are awarded funds. Having testimonial statements from student users of Ml—CASHE
who were awarded funds would assist them in determining whether using Ml-
CASHE is beneﬁcial. Both the counselors and the ﬁnancial aid administrators stated
that being able to provide examples of success stories would provide
encouragement for students to use Ml-CASHE, and, as professionals, they would
be more inclined to recommend using it. Having success stories to look to might be
a factor that would encourage student persistence through the entire MI—CASHE
process. Keeping in mind the student who asked, "What’s the use?” in using Ml-
CASHE, the users want evidence that it is worth their time and money.

Whether using MI-CASHE is beneﬁcial is determined most often by the
awarding of funds. Because the program was in its initial stages of operation, the
majority of the parents, counselors, and ﬁnancial aid administrators who were
interviewed were willing to give the program a chance to get on its feet. However,
student users who were interviewed were not as tolerant. Thus, the direct users and
indirect users did not agree on whether using Ml-CASHE was beneﬁcial.

It might be that it is too early to determine whether a supplementary ﬁnancial
aid program such as MI-CASHE is beneﬁcial in locating sources of scholarships and
securing funds for higher education. Time and volume of usage will need to be

monitored, as well as tracking of those who actually are awarded funds and, of those

116

who are awarded funds, tracking of their persistence through to degree completion.
In the meantime, there is the opportunity for the Ml-CASHE program staff to make
improvements in the program. The Ml-CASHE office staff did express their desire
to conduct regular evaluations, but the OSFA did not commit to that. According to
the coordinator of the MI-CASHE program, statistics on volume and usage will
continue to be collected monthly and compiled quarterly.

W: What lessons can be learned from MI-CASHE
concerning public policy issues?

Not only do parents, counselors, and ﬁnancial aid administrators need to
become aware of Ml-CASH E, but policymakers in Michigan need to be aware of the
existence of Ml-CASHE. If Ml-CASHE is to be used to maximum potential, those
legislators charged with developing policy pertaining to college costs need to
become aware of MI-CASHE and how it could be used as a source of information
concerning private aid opportunities. Somefederal government leaders have sought
provisions for supporting the existence of national ﬁnancial aid information
databases or for a clearinghouse of scholarship information. For example, in the
1992 Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, there is a suggestion that
a clearinghouse for ﬁnancial aid information be established, particularly aimed at
creating early awareness programs regarding preparation for college and planning
to meet the costs. MI-CASHE could be a source of information to assist students in
these programs.

If more policymakers in the state of Michigan were made aware of MI-

CASHE, they might have more than a passing interest in it, particularly since the

117

current governor of Michigan is continually looking for ways to trim the educational
budget and is also very much in favor of free enterprise. Knowing that the OSFA-
MHEAA/LA is operating a service that is also a not-for—proﬁt, private enterprise
program might be very appealing to the legislators. Furthermore, iflegislators were
interested in supporting MI-CASHE, it is conceivable that considerations such as tax
incentives for scholarship sponsors could be made that would help build up the
information sources in the database.

Fenske et al. (1983) stated that, as important as ﬁnancial aid efforts were
considered by the federal government, ”student ﬁnancial aid was never founded on
a coherent philosophical base. At the government level, it has always comprised
disjointed, transitory programs targeted at momentarily popular national social goals”
(p. 13). The authors likened student ﬁnancial aid to a ”classic example of the
American political genius for ’muddling through’ to some mixed, but generally
effective, results” (p. 13).

Student ﬁnancial aid programs have been debated in Congress from the
moment they were developed. Each year the funding of ﬁnancial aid programs has
changed, with some programs being completely eliminated and some revised or
resurrected from previous cuts. Many members of Congress believe that ﬁnancial
aid is more of a way to subsidize the institutions rather than to assist students in
attending. But how much money should Congress make available for assisting
students who want to attend higher education? Therein lies the debate. Who should

bear the burden of cost—society or the individual (Leslie & Brinkman, 1988)? Or,

118

more “speciﬁcally, what is the relative share of costs to be borne by parents,
students, and the general taxpayer?" (Johnston, 1986, p. 10). According to a source '
in the popular press, Money Magazine (“Aiming for Accuracy,“ 1966) reported that
tuition averages in 1995-96 at private and public schools were $10,333 and $2,730,
respectively (p. 5). Many families have not saved enough money to offset those
costs.

There are ways to work around the dilemma of being able to afford the
college education of one’s choice and not taking on a heavy debt burden. Because
grants and scholarships are in greater demand and shorter supply than in previous
years, students and families have had to consider other options, one of those being
loans. After primary funding sources such as grants and loans are considered, then
potential secondary sources such as Ml-CASHE can be considered.

Quoting Leslie and Brinkman (1988), ”It must also be said that aid is not all
powerful. . . . As a tool for social policy, student aid is not a viable substitute for a
nurturing home life and a solid primary and secondary education” (p. 180). When
parents prioritize saving money for their children’s future and let their children know
they are actively engaged in saving money for postsecondary education needs, a
message is being sent to the children that higher education is important.

Prioritizing early preparation for college costs might also be a factor to
encourage student persistence and success rate because, if the child has heard
about going to college throughout life, he or she also knows that academic

performance is important to being accepted or gaining access. Sometime during the

119

growing-up years, the child realizes that parents contribute the money and he or she
contributes the academic achievement, i.e., good grades. It might also be a time
when the student realizes that he or she could be working and saving for college
also. Or, as Margolin (1989) stated, “Simply taking some action (opening a college
savings account, for example) often has a snowball effect, and makes family
members feel less helpless and more in charge of their own futures" (p. 5). Many
parents feel anxiety over the thought of bearing the costs for this major investment
called higher education. One way to alleviate some of the anxiety is in ﬁnancial
planning, ”which is absolutely essential ifthey wish to fulﬁll the American dream for
themselves and their family" (Margolin, 1989, p. 4). In addition to ﬁnancial planning,
parents might receive some symbolic comfort by leaving no stone unturned , and also
may wish to check into private sources of aid, such as a scholarship information

search service, i.e., MI-CASHE.

W

Some serious issues were raised by this study. First is the issue of whether
Ml-CASHE has the potential to be more effective. To increase the potential
effectiveness of MI-CASHE, the Ml-CASHE program staff need to review the
ﬁndings from the study and use them to improve the product and provide guidelines
for more effective usage. For example, the Ml-CASHE staff need to publish specific
guidelines that would explain the need to meet application deadline dates and to
follow through the entire application process. Additional guidelines for increasing

effectiveness of Ml-CASHE are listed in the recommendation section.

120

A second issue concerns the accountability of the leasing company, CASH E-
NCSL. They should be held accountable for the produCt they are selling. The
Michigan CASHE ofﬁce has a responsibility to the student users to provide a credible
product and quality service. In order to do this, the Ml-CASHE ofﬁce must make
certain that the terms of the contractual agreement include criteria for effective use
of the program. For example, CASH E-NCSL has agreed to update their scholarship
sponsor list on a yearly basis and send updated information to the lessee twice a
year. It would behoove the Ml-CASHE ofﬁce to have a system of cross-checks with
the sponsors to ensure that CASH E-NCSL is doing what it claims-that sources are
being updated and that users are receiving current sources.

A second example of criteria for effective use would be to determine that a
speciﬁc number or percentage of users must be recipients of funds as a result of
using the CASHE database. However, the company, CASHE-N CS L, does state that
it does not guarantee that users will receive funds as a result of using the database.
(The database is a source of information, not a source of funds.) That statement
puts the responsibility in the users’ hands with the intention of absolving the
company from being held accountable for bottom-line effective use of their program,
which is users being awarded funds and documentation of the results. The CASHE
company could use the argument (cited in this study) that if the user does not persist
through the entire application process, he or she is not in line as a potential
candidate to be awarded funds. But, on the other hand, if the users are receiving

outdated sources, they cannot possibly become potential candidates. Thus, itwould

121

behoove the CASHE company to contact sponsors and ﬁnd out whether the
sponsors awarded scholarship funds in a given year and how many sCholarships
were awarded. This would provide the type of information that the high school
counselors and ﬁnancial aid administrators were asking for in the telephone
interviews—tangible evidence of the effectiveness of MI-CASH E. In particular, they
wanted to know whether users from Michigan were awarded funds—how many
students were awarded funds and the amount of the funds. If it was found that a
high number of awards was being made, then the potential exists to promote
continued usage of MI-CASH E. If the award numbers were low, Ml-CASHE usage
would potentially decrease or the program could be discontinued.

Accumulating information regarding promoting or discontinuing usage of MI-
CASHE should be of interest to the OSFA and the MHEAAILA. This presents a third
issue to consider. Why would the MHEANLA want to continue offering a public
service that was not effective for the user and not cost-effective for the MHEAAILA?
The point is, if this program is not beneﬁcial, why support it? The OSFA should be
held accountable for the cost-effectiveness of the program, and thus for the use of
the legislative appropriation. This issue of funding the MI-CASHE program prompts
the recognition of another issue.

A fourth issue to be considered as a result of this study involves the role of
public policymakers who debate not only the issues of funding student ﬁnancial aid
programs, but more speciﬁcally of funding MI-CASHE. One of the roles of

policymakers is to consider the traditional ﬁnancial aid policies and really think about

122

why the policies are not working as well as they once did. If policymakers are
concerned about serving the public who voted them into ofﬁce, they need to be more
aware of the needs of the current society and be more receptive to innovations that
will enhance accessibility of postsecondary education opportunities. At the same
time, they must be aware of the costs and beneﬁts involved with funding student
ﬁnancial aid programs. Would policymakers continue to fund MI-CASHE ifthey were
aware of the costs and beneﬁts that this study brought to the forefront? Referring
to Chapter IV information regarding Ml-CASHE program operating costs, a one-year
contract with CASHE-NCSL costs the MHEAAILA $22,000. The ﬁrst year’s
legislative appropriation for program operation was $100,000. No speciﬁc line—item
budget for operating MI-CASHE was available, but based on miscellaneous
information, conservative estimates imply that the ofﬁce would have had to
encumber a minimum of $75,000 for routine operating costs. Data from the study
showed that nine students were awarded a total of $1 1 .850 in scholarship funds as
a result of applying to Ml-CASHE scholarship sponsors during the ﬁrst ﬁve months
MI-CASHE operated. Thus, a minimum of $97,000 was disbursed for operating Ml-
CASHE and $42,000 was credited as a result of 2,800 users paying the $15
processing fee. Even ifthere had been 5,000 users the ﬁrst year, MI-CASHE would
have brought in $75,000 and not matched the initial appropriation. In addition, it is
noteworthy that the second year’s appropriation was $350,000. The program
operations were not expanded for the second year, thus prompting an accountability

question for the large increase.

123

A number of questions result from this. One question is whether Ml-CASHE
can become a self-supporting program; the seCond is whether the program is
effective and beneﬁcial for the users. Could there have been a higher return than
$11,850 worth of scholarship funds awarded to only nine students? And could the
funds appropriated for the MI-CASHE operations be used in another way. possibly
as non-need scholarships? For example. the $350,000 appropriation could be
applied for and given out as 350 $1,000 scholarships. Then. instead of nine
students receiving scholarships ranging in amounts of $50 to $2,500. as was
reported in the study. 350 students could receive scholarships averaging $1.000.
One concern might be the equity in awarding the scholarships. However. students
would be competing statewide rather than nationwide as they do when using the
CASHE database. which would allow them a better chance at becoming a
scholarship recipient. Some type of differentiating criteria would have to be used to
determine the recipients. For example. the state could determine one scholarship
per high school in Michigan and let the individual school decide who the recipient
should be.

At this point, the main benefactor of Ml-CASHE may be the OSFA and the
MHEAAILA in offering MI-CASHE as a public relations tool. The appropriations
indicate there is funding available to be used for scholarships, whereas the ﬁndings
of this study suggested that by using Ml-CASHE, there were few chances that any

individual student would be awarded funds. Thus, another option would be to

124
disburse the appropriations money to the students directly instead of using it for MI-
CASHE operating costs.

Recalling the interviews with the director of OSFA and of Support Services
Programs. Ml-CASHE was initiated as a service and not a business venture.
However, the plan was for Ml-CASHE to become self-supporting over time. During
the interviews. the directors stated they were waiting to learn the results of this study
to assist them in developing further plans for operating Ml-CASHE. In addition, the
directors did not mention whether policymakers had requested an accounting of the
appropriations granted forthe program. It would behoove the directors to review the
ﬁndings, assess the worthwhile use of the appropriations, and hold themselves
accountable before they are requested to do so by the legislature. and possibly
jeopardizing future funding. On behalf of the MHEAAILA. the directors must run a
credible scholarship information program. remembering that it exists to assist the
public in ﬁnding ways to reduce the costs of college. Policymakers need to look for
other ways to respond to public concerns. too.

A ﬁnal point is that there are other methods that policymakers could employ
in order to learn more about the public’s concern about the costs of college and the
need for ﬁnancial aid programs. For example, one way to be more aware of
constituent needs is to arrange focus groups. In this case, focus groups would
include current college students. parents. and college administrators. The
policymakers need to ﬁnd out how and why traditional aid programs are not enough

anymore. College tuition continues to rise, and accessibility to postsecondary

125

opportunities continues to fall. Those policymakers who are advocates for keeping
postsecondary education accessible need to be challenged to play a stronger role
in leading and managing the struggle for innovative student ﬁnancial aid programs.
and increasing accessibility for students who are less ﬁnancially able.

The issues discussed above (effectiveness. cost-beneﬁt ratio, and state policy
regarding access) attempt to describe and explain the conceptual tension found in
this study. The recommendations that follow are a result of data gathered from the
evaluation. If. over a designated period of time. the OSFA determines that Ml-
CASHE is worthwhile in terms of costs and beneﬁts, then the following suggestions
for implementing changes could be useful for improving the Ml-CASHE product and
service. The recommendations include ideas to consider. as well as guidelines
meant to assist or instruct direct and indirect users and increase the effectiveness
of Ml-CASH E. However. ifthe OSFA determined Ml-CASHE was ineffective and not
worthwhile in terms of costs and beneﬁts, then the primary recommendation would
be to discontinue the program and redirect the appropriations to be used as

scholarship money disbursed directly to eligible students on a non-need basis.

BecommendationsioﬁhthCASHEﬁmram
The following recommendations are a result of this study on the perceived
effectiveness of Ml-CASHE and should be considered if Ml-CASHE continues
operating. The recommendations are listed in categories that pertain to the OSFA

if they continue to offer Ml-CASHE. and both the direct (students) and indirect

126

(parents. high school counselors. and ﬁnancial aid administrators) users of the
program and public policy makers.

Becommendationﬂoﬂheﬂfﬂceﬂ
Sll IE' 'II 'I

1. Continue evaluating MI-CASHE as follows:

a. Set a timetable for evaluation and tracking of user results.
There are a variety of ways to conduct the speciﬁc evaluation activities.
Follow-up telephone interviews with users could yield helpful information and
show the student that Ml-CASHE operates in good faith. It might also provide
an opportunity for the Ml-CASHE staff to encourage a student to follow
through with the process.

b. Consider developing liaisons with high school counselors or
ﬁnancial aid administrators who would agree to assist in the tracking of
students who use Ml-CASH E.

c. Send a questionnaire using a postage-paid postcard asking
follow-up questions to student users. The postcard should be sent about two
months after mailing the student’s scholarship match list.

2. Consider tracking with sponsoring agents. Contact some sponsors
and ask them to participate in tracking the numbers of students who contact them
due to using Ml-CASHE. Find out sponsors’ procedures for reviewing applications

and awarding funds. This information could be useful in encouraging students to

127
persist through the application process. It is also information counselors are
requesting.

3. Provide more assistance to high school counselors so that they may
(a) have a more thorough understanding of how the program works and (b) know
when is the most beneﬁcial time for students to use Ml-CASHE.

4. Consider deveIOping more sponsoring agencies. This might very well
require a special agreement with the leasing company, CASHE, and terms would
have to be worked out.

5. Include proprietary schools in the national database and develop more
sponsoring agencies forthem. Again. a special agreement might have to be worked
out with the Ieaser.

6. Develop a marketing strategy to provide information regarding the
availability of MI-CASHE. Target student users. indirect users (e.g., parents, high

school counselors, ﬁnancial aid administrators). and policymakers.

WW

1. Start early. Become well informed of the process of applying for both
primary and secondary sources of ﬁnancial aid. Plan for completing papenNork
before the deadline date(s). Deadline dates occur as much as six months to one
year before fall of the freshman year. Funding sources usually are given out on a
ﬁrst-come, ﬁrst-served basis.

2. When using Ml-CASH E. persist through the entire application process

in order to be a candidate for scholarship funds.

128
3. Seek assistance from high school counselors or ﬁnancial aid

administrators in completing forms. writing essays. and so on.

1. Contact the OSFA or a high school counselor and ask for all the facts
on using MI-CASHE. Understand how the information is processed. Realize there
are no guarantees and that MI-CASHE is a secondary information source.

2. Assist your students with completing the MI-CASHE application form.
but let them do the work. Your involvement in the process could encourage their
persistence in completing the entire application process.

8 ll' EII'ISI ID I
W

1. Become informed ofthe Ml-CASHE program and application process.
Call the Ml-CASHE ofﬁce with questions. Know what Ml-CASHE can and cannot
offer to students.

2. Provide students and parents with information regarding Ml-CASHE.
explaining that it is a secondary source of scholarship information. Let students
know it is available.

3. Be willing to invest some time in assisting students with completing the
entire MI-CASHE application process. Encourage students to persist through to
completion. Enlist some willing parents or other students to assist in these efforts.
If an essay is required for the application. consider asking English teachers to assist

students in writing it.

129
B I I. E E. a I g" I E I a a l I

W

1. Designate a staff member to become informed about MI-CASHE,
speciﬁcally.

2. Become savvy to the nuances of the application process in order for

MI-CASHE to be as effective as possible. For example, know when is the most
opportune time to apply to Ml-CASHE, and that Ml-CASHE is not only for entering
freshmen but could be beneﬁcial to currently enrolled undergraduates and/or
graduate students. and so on.

3. Consider keeping track of student users and the outcome of their use
of Ml-CASHE. The ﬁndings from the study indicated that both potential direct and
indirect users want testimonials from previous users.

8 | I' f E I' I
W

1. Become aware of MI-CASHE as a source of secondary scholarship
information for Michigan residents, and as a way of increasing access to
postsecondary education opportunities.

2. Develop a strategy, including incentives, to increase sponsors of
scholarships, e.g., from business and industry, foundations. philanthropic
organizations. service clubs. and so on. Support the OSFA in maintaining the
existence of the state and national database.

Scholarship search services do have a place as sources for scholarship

information. especially in a technological society. However. it is critical that

130

scholarship sources be kept up to date. that new sources be developed, and, overall,
that the service is credible and does what it claims to douprovides an effective
means of searching for scholarship sources while being worthwhile in terms of costs

and beneﬁts. Finally. some students must be awarded funds.

WWW

One opportunity for future research includes conducting a longitudinal study
regarding student persistence and awarding of scholarship funds. A longitudinal
study would allow the researcher to collect data on students who used MI-CASHE
at the most opportune times--students who applied early enough to meet the
application deadlines and who persisted through the entire application process. A
representative sample of these students could be tracked to ﬁnd out whether they
were awarded funds, the amount they were awarded. as well as questions regarding
the inﬂuence of scholarships on persistence. In addition. the students could be
tracked to learn whether they persisted through to degree completion.

In this study, no information was collected regarding socioeconomic status
of users. Further studies might include income level as an independent variable and
whether it has any effect on persistence.

Also, if future studies regarding Ml-CASHE are conducted, there might be
other studies available with whichto compare results. Additional studies might be
able to describe and explain patterns and tendencies that could be used to provide

indicators of effectiveness that were not examined in this study. Additional studies

131

might also provide greater insights regarding the proﬁles of users. persisters and

nonpersisters.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

FREQUENCIES OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS

132
Table A1: Ml-CASHE users demographic variables.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ll Demographic Variable Number Percent
889.6
White 140 43.9
Black 86 27.0
Hispanic 29 9.1
Native American 21 6.6
Asian 35 1 1.0
Other 8 2.5
Total 319 100.0
Missing: 48
16-17 221 60.2
18 & older 146 39.8
Total 367 100.0
Non-Catholic 236 66.3
Catholic 120 33.7
Total 356 100.0
Non-Protestant 182 51.1
Protestant 174 48.9
Total 356 100.0
Non-Christian 62 17.4
Christian 294 82.6
Total 356 100.0
Handicap
I' No handicap 271 90.3
Handicap 29 9.7
Total 300 100.0
Missing: 67
Nonprofessional 174 58.4
Professional 124 41.6
Total 298 100.0
Nonclerical 236 79.2
Clerical 62 20.8
Total 298 100.0
Nonservice 225 75.5
Service 73 24.5
Total 298 100.0

 

 

 

 

133

Table A1: Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographic Variable Number Percent 1|
Nonprofessional 136 50.4
Professional 1 34 49.6

Total 270 100.0
Nonbenchwork 225 83.3
Benchwork 45 16.7

Total 270 100.0

Householdﬁtatus
Both or intact 302 83.2
Single parent 61 16.8

Total 363 100.0
Professional 153 41.7
Highly technical 214 58.3

Total 367 100.0
Rural/farm 47 12.8
Small city/town 143 39.0
Suburban 1 10 30.0
Urban 65 17.7
Missing 2 .5

Total 367 100.0
US. 357 97.3
Foreign 3 .8
Visa 5 1.4
Not speciﬁed 2 .6

Total 367 100.0

MaritaLStatusaLUsers

Single 352 96.0
Married 9 3.0
Missing 6 1.0

Total 367 100.0

I EnroﬂmenLStatusoLUsars

Full-time 349 95.1
Part-time 15 4.1
Missing 3 .8

Total 367 100.0

 

 

 

 

Table A1: Continued.

134

 

" Demographic Variable

Number

Percent

 

Junior high school
Senior high school
Freshman-college

Junior-college
Senior—college
Graduate
Missing

Total

 

leaﬂnﬁcthoLLlseLs

Sophomore-college

13
278
33
16
13
2

1 1

1
367

 

N
99:“

 

 

. 's». @990
0 001010000

_5
O
o

 

Source: The information included in Table A1 was collected from the MI- CASHE
application completed for each student user.

Table A2: Grade point averages. ACT and SAT scores. and source matches of

respondents.

 

Grade Point Average

Average GPA

Range of GPA

 

 

 

Users: 357/Missing: 0

3.32

1.80-4.00

 

‘Ac’r caninnsiie we“ ” 1

Average ACT Score f I ’ Range of ACT Scores

 

Users: 301/Missing: 66

23

 

iiifit;12;???2555.2;5;...f?i§24:5.i'%;:,*‘-}.;:*;;si--~:.iiéii - i: i 5* , I " i i - 9“

 

SAT-Math Score. I

Average SAT-M Score

Range of SAT-M Scores

 

 

Users: 80lMissing: 287

574 .

260-800

 

SATVerbalScore

I Average SAT-V Score

1 Range of SAT-V Scores

 

Users: 81/Missing: 286

507

21 0-720

 

 

Average Number of H - i .

Source Matches

Range of Source ‘ H *
Matches

 

MI-CASHE Source
Matches Listed on
Search Report

 

 

25

 

 

6-75 .

 

 

=

Table A3: Responses to Item 1: How did you hear about MI-CASHE? (Students

135

could choose more than one response.)

 

ll Response

 

 

 

  

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number Percent

II a. Attended a ﬁnancial aid night 234 63.8
lb. From newspaper or other media 26 7.1
c. From a friend who used it 41 11.2
d. From a high school counselor 190 51.8

. Colle e ﬁnancial aid ofﬁce 60 16.3

f. At a public library 21 5.7
"_g. At an adult center 1 .3
h. Employer education assistance 4 1.1
(gher - specify 36 9.8

 

 

 

 

NOTE: There were no missing data. No totals are listed as students were allowed
to choose more than one response; i.e., the percent column does not equal 100.0.

Table A4: Responses to Item 2a: Have you used any other ﬁnancial aid Iocator

 

 

 

 

 

 

system?
Response Number Percent "
Yes 35 9.5 H
No 332 90.5
ll Missing o 0.0
LTotal __ 367 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

136

Table A5: Responses to Item 2b: If yes. which ones?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Number Percent
PEPSI 2 5.7
Western Michigan University - CASHE 2 5.7
A computer program at myLigh school 2 5.7
VECTOR Group, Ltd. 1 2.8
Scholarships 101 1 2.8
Dollars for Scholars 1 2.8
College Fund Finder 1 2.8
American Educational Assistance Council 1 2.8
NESTLE 1 2.8
Scholarship Search 1 2.8
Don’t recall the name 22 63.0

 

Table A6: Responses to Item 3: Were the instructions understandable?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Number Percent ll

Not at all understandable 8 2.2 "
Somewhat understandable 47 12.8

[I Reasonably understandable 236 64.3 ll
Extremely understandable 72 19.6

Missing 4 1.1 II

L___'l‘otal 367 100.0 IJ

 

 

 

137

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table A7: Responses to Item 4: If you called the Ml-CASHE office, how helpful
was the staff?
II Response Number Percent
" Did not call the ofﬁce 267 72.0
Not at all helpful 4 1.1
Somewhat helpful 14 3.8
Helpful 41 11.2
Very helpful 32 8.7
II Missing 9 2.5
|| Total 367 100.0
Table A8: Responses to Item 5: How satisﬁed were you with the results of the
search report?
Response Number Percent
Very dissatisﬁed 83 22.6
Somewhat dissatisﬁed 97 26.4
Neither 80 21.8
Somewhat satisﬁed 78 21.3
Very satisﬁed 22 6.0
Missing 7 1.9
Total 367 100.0
Table A9: Responses to Item 6a: Did you contact any sponsoring agencies to
apply for speciﬁc scholarships. grants. etc?
Response Number Percent II
Yes 190 51.8
No 136 37.1
Missing 41 11.2
Total = 367 100.1

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

138

Table A10: Responses to Item 6b: If you did contact sponsors. how many did you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

contact?
r Response Number Percent
|| 0 .3
|| 1 9 2.5
|| 2 21 5.7
|| 3 25 6.8
II 4 19 5.2
5 24 6.5
6 13 3.5
7 7 1.9
8 6 1.6
9 2 .5
10 14 38
11 2 .5
12 5 1.4 l
- 13 1 .3
15 8 2.2
18 3 .8
19 1 .3 ||
20 4 11 ||
25 1 .3 II
ll 30 1 .3

 

 

 

Missing 200 54.5
Total 367 100.0

 

 

 

139

Table A11: Responses to Item 6c: Did you contact any sponsors; if not why not?
(Students were allowed more than one response.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Number Percent
6c. Match list did not apply 118 32.2
6d. Deadlines were passed 107 29.2
6e. Decided not to go to school 1 .3
6f. Lost the match list 10 2.7
69. Forgot to 9 2.5
6h. Not worth my time 24 6.5
6i. Did not need ﬁnancial aid 7 1.9

 

 

 

 

Table A12: Responses to Item 7: About how much time did you spend contacting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sponsors?

Response Number Percent
Two hours or less 97 26.4
More than two hours but less than ﬁve 82 22.3
Five to ten hours 45 12.3 I
More than ten hours 20 5.4
Missing 123 33.5
Total 367 100.0 “

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

140

Table A13: Responses to Item 8a: If you did contact any sponsoring agencies.
how many sponsors did you contact?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Number Percent ﬂ
ll 0 10 2.7
1 13 3.5
2 24 6.5
I 3 26 7.1
4 23 6.3
5 23 6.3
6 15 4.1
7 2.5
8 1.6
9 .8
10 12 33
11 1 .3
”I 12 5 1.4 ..
13 2 .5
14 1 .3
15 7 1.9
18 3 8
19 1 .3
20 4 1.1
23 1 .3
25 1 .3 ||
30 1 3 I]
Missing 176 48.0 H
=Lital 367 100.0 IJ

 

 

 

 

141

Table A14: Responses to Item A14: Number of responses received from

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sponsors.

ll Response Number Percent

|| 0 39 10.6

n 1 19 5.2

|| 2 25 6.8

|| 3 24 6.5
4 19 5.2

Pr 5 19 5.2
6 5 1.4
7 5 1.4
8 7 1.9
9 3 .8
10 9 2.5
12 3 .8
14 1 .1
16 1 .1
20 1 .1
30 1 .1
Missing 186 50.7 ll

£1 367 100.0 ||

 

 

 

 

142

Table A15: Responses to Item 9a: Number of applications returned to sponsors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ll Response Number Percent

|| 0 88 24.0

I 1 29 7.9
2 22 6.0
3 23 6.3
4 16 4.4
5 12 3.3
6 7 1.9
7 6 1.6
8 4 1.1
9 2 .5
10 11 3.0
15 1 .3
20 1 .3
Missing 145 39.5
Total 367 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

Table A16: Responses to Item 10a: If you did apply to any sponsoring agencies,
did any of them require an application fee? '

 

 

 

 

 

If Response Number Percent

[I Yes 40 10.9
No 144 39.2
Missing 183 49.9
Total 367 100.0

 

 

 

 

143

Table A17: Responses to Item 10b: How many sponsoring agencies required a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fee? '

Response Number Percent
0 2 .5
1 22 3.0
2 8 2.2
3 6 1 .6
4 1 .3
5 1 .3
10 1 .3
Missing 337 91.8
Total 367 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

Table A18: Responses to Item 10c: How much was the lowest application fee?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Number Percent
1 1 .3
2 2 -5 u
3 2 .5
4 1 .3
5 13 3.5
10 2 .5
15 9 .8
17 1 .3
20 1 .3
22 1 .3
Missing 340 92.6
Total 367 100.0

 

Table A19: Responses to Item 10d: How much was the highest application fee?

144

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Number Percent
5 10 2.7
10 6 1.6
12 1 .3
13 1 .3
15 2 .5
20 1 .3
25 1 .3
35 2 .5
Missing 343 93.5
Total 367 100.0

 

Table A20: Responses to Item 11a: If you did complete the applications from

sponsoring agencies. were you awarded funds?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Number Percent
Yes 14 3.8
I No 161 43.9
H Missing 192 52.3
367

II Total

 

 

 

 

 

145

Table A21: Responses to Item 11b: If you were awarded funds. how many did
you receive?

 

 

 

 

 

 

II Response Number Percent
1 .1
3 .8
.5
358 97.6
367 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

Table A22: Responses to Item 110: What was the total amount of the awards?

I:—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Number Percent 11
$ 50.00 1 .3 II
$ 500.00 1 .3 1|
$ 750.00 1 .3
$ 900.00 1 .3
$1,000.00 2 .3
$1,450.00 1 .3
$1,700.00 1 .3
$2,000.00 1 .3 ll
$2,500.00 1 .3
Missing 357 972 All
Total 367 100.0

 

146
Table A23: Responses to Item 12: Would you use Ml-CASHE again?

 

 

 

 

 

ll Response Number Percent

|| Yes 186 50.7

H No 169 46.0
Missing 12 3.3

I

ll Total 367 100.0

 

 

 

 

Table A24: Responses to Item 13: How satisﬁed were you in using MI-CASHE?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Number Percent
Very satisﬁed 25 6.8
Somewhat satisﬁed 63 17.2
Neither 93 26.2
Somewhat dissatisﬁed 84 22.9
Very dissatisﬁed 90 24.5
Missing 12 3.3
Total 367 100.0

 

Table A25: Responses to Item 14: Would you recommend Ml—CASHE to
someone else?

 

 

 

 

 

l—l-r Response Number Percent
.|| Yes 224 61.0
No 126 34.3
Missing 17 4.6
Total 367 100.0

 

 

 

 

147
Table A26: Responses to Item 15: Are you attending college during the 1994-95

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

school year?

Response Number Percent
Full-time 333 90.7
Part-time 17 4.6
Not attending 17 . 4.6
Missing 0 0.0
Total 367 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table A27: Responses to Item 16: Were you enrolled in college when you initially
applied to MI-CASHE?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Number Percent I
Full-time 78 21.3
Part-time 14 3.8
Not attending 274 74.7
Missing 1 .3
Total 367 100.0

 

 

 

 

148

Table A28: Responses to Item 17a: How do you plan to pay for your college
educational costs (e.g., tuition, room. board. etc)? Indicate the
approximate percentage of each source. '

a. family funds

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ll Response* Number“ Percent H

l 1 1 .3 II

II 2 1 .3
3 2 .5
5 16 4.4 II
6 1 .3
10 19 5.2
12 1 .3
13 1 .3
14 1 .3
15 4 1.1
20 18 4.9
22 1 .3
25 19 5.2 1
29 1 .3 ||
30 7 1.9
33 2 .5

l 35 6 1.6
40 5 1.4
47 1 .3

 

 

 

 

Table A28: Continued.

149

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response* Number“ Percent "
50 36 9.8
55 1 .3
60 5 1.4
.5 5 1|
66 2 .5 II
67 1 .3 I!
70 5 1.4
75 8 2.2
80 7 1.9 "
85 2 .5
86 1 .3
90 16 4.4
93 1 .3 l
95 4 1.1 II
98 1 .3
99 3 .8
100 22 6.0
Missing 140 38.1
Total 367 100.0 1

 

*Response = percentage of funds.

"Number = number of students.

150

Table A29: Responses to Item 17b: How do you plan to pay for your college
educational costs (e.g., tuition, room, board, etc)?
b. personal funds '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[l Response* Number" Percent 1
1 2 .5
2 1 .3
IF. . .
|| 5 17 4.6
II 6 1 .3
8 1 .3
10 42 11.4
11 1 .3
12 1 .3
13 1 .3
15 6 1.6
18 1 .3
20 15 4.1
25 19 5.2
30 11 3.0
32 1 .3
33 2 .5
35 1 .3
40 2 .5
50 13 3.5
75 2 .5
80 3 .8
100 8 2.2
Missing 215 58.6
Total 367 100.0

 

 

 

 

*Response = percentage of funds.

"Number = number of students.

151
Table A30: Responses to Item 17c: How do you plan to pay for your college

educational costs (e.g., tuition, room. board, etc)?
c. scholarships '

ll Response* Number“ Perceht "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 1 .3
2 2 .5
5 15 4.1

|l 6 1 .3

I 10 34 9.3 II
12 4 11 ||

|| 15 6 1.6 ll

|| 20 14 3.8 "
25 23 6.3

|| .7 . .3

|| 30 7 1.9 I,

ll 33 3 .8 “
34 2 .5
35 4 1.1
40 8 2.2
45 2 .5

 

 

01
o
N
.3
0'1
‘1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100
Missing 192 52.3
Total 367 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

mm
001
\I—b.h_sN—LO'|-A
—L
at»
I=g========

 

*Response = percentage of funds.

“Number = number of students.

152

Table A31: Responses to Item 17d: How do you plan to pay for your college
educational costs (e.g., tuition. room. board. etc)?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

d. grants
'1 Response* Number“ Percent
1 2 .5
4 1 .3
5 7 1.9 II
6 1 .3
7 1 .3 ll
8 2 .5
10 20 5.4
11 1 .3
15 6 1 6
20 15 4.1
23 1 .3
25 11 3.0
30 7 1.9
33 2 .5
35 3 .8
40 6 1.6
45 1 .3
50 11 3.0
60 1 .3
65 1 .3
75 4 1.1
80 3 .8
Missing 260 70.8
Total 367 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

*Response = percentage of funds.

“Number = number of students.

153

Table A32: Responses to Item 17e: How do you plan to pay for your college
educational costs (e.g., tuition. room. board, etc)?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e.loans
Response* = Number" Percent
5 1 3
10 14 3.8
13 1 .3
15 6 1.6
17 1 3
18 1 .3
19 1 .3
20 15 4.1 n
24 1 .3
25 23 6.3 ||
30 9 2.5
32 2 .5
33 3 .8
35 5 1.4
40 10 2.7 ll
45 2 .5
46 1 .3
47 2 .5
50 20 5.4
59 1 .3
60 8 2.2
63 1 3
65 3 .8
70 ,5 1.4 J]

 

 

 

 

154

Table A32: Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response* Nimber" = Pergnt
75 1 .3
80 6 1.6
85 2 .5
90 6 1 6
95 1 .3
100 4 1.1 II
Missing 21 1 57.5
Total 367 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Response = percentage of funds.
, “Number = number of students.
Table A33: Responses to Item 17f: How do you plan to pay for your college

educational costs (e.g., tuition. room, board. etc)?
f. internship

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

= Response* Number" Percent ll

5 1 .3

10 2 .5

12 1 .3

13 1 .3

15 1 .3

30 1 .3
40 1 .3
Missing 359 97.8
Total 367 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

*Response = percentage of funds.

”Number = number of students.

Table A34: Responses to Item 179: How do you plan to pay for your college

155

educational costs (e.g., tuition, room. board. etc)?

 

 

 

 

g. fellowship
ﬂ Response* Number" Percent
n 15 ’ 1 .3
|[ Missing 366 99.7
|| Total 367 100.0 )1

 

 

 

*Response = percentage of funds.

“Number = number of students.

Table A35: Responses to Item 17h: How do you plan to pay for your college

educational costs (e.g., tuition, room. board, etc)?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

h. work-study
Response* Number“ Percent :
1 2 .5
2 1 .3
. 3 1 .3
5 11 3.0
7 1 .3
I1 8 1 .3
|| 10 23 6.3
|| 15 4 1.1
" 20 5 1.4
25 4 1.1
40 1 .3
50 2 .5
Missing 311 84.7
Total 367 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

*Response = percentage of funds.

”Number = number of students.

 

 

156

Table A36: Responses to Item 17i: How do you plan to pay for your college
educational costs (tuition. room, board. etc)?
i. non work-study employment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response* NTlmber" Percent =
2 1 .3
5 7 1.9
|| 6 1 .3
8 1 .3
10 10 2.7
15 2 .5
.. . ll
25 2 .5 ||
30 1 .3
31 1 .3
40 2 .5
50 2 .5
60 1 .3
75 1 .3
85 1 3
100 3 .8 ,,
Missing 327 89.1
Total 367 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

*Response = percentage of funds.

“Number = number of students.

157

Table A37: Responses to Item 17j: How do you plan to pay for your college
educational costs (e.g., tuition. room, board. etc)?
j. employer-sponsored funds

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

= Response* Number“ Percent
7 1 .3

,l 50 1 .3 I
90 1 .3
Missing 364 99.2
Total 367 100.0

 

 

*Response = percentage of funds.

“Number = number of students.

Table A38: Responses to Item 17k: How do you plan to pay for your college
educational costs (e.g., tuition. room. board. etc)?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

k. other
Response*. Number“ Percent ll
1 1 .3
10 1 .3
20 2 .5
25 2 .5
50 5 1 .4
Missing 356 97.0
Total 367 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Response = percentage of funds.

”Number = number of students.

 

158

Table A39: Responses to Item 17I: How do you plan to pay for your college
educational costs (e.g., tuition, room. board, etc)?
I. have decided not to attend college now '

 

 

 

 

= Response* Number“ Percent =
0 2 5
Missing 365 99.5
Total 367 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

*Response = percentage of funds.

“Number = number of students.

APPENDIX B

LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE
ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

Uninrslty Commlltaa on
Research Involving
Mmun&mhas
lUCHll-IS)

Michigan State University
225 Aarnlnlstrailon Building
ﬂatmwaMmmm
48824-1046

517/355-2180
FAX: 517/432-1171

USU Is an aﬂirmarwmclon
ml-dcoonunzrv Institunan

    

159

MICHIGAN STATE
U I1 I \/ E It 5 I T- Y

 

December 21, 1994

TO: Margaret LaFleur
417 Erickson Hall

RE: IRB#: 94-588

TITLE: A POLICY STUDY. STUDYING THE EFFECTIVENESS OP
THE MI-CASHE PROGRAM; WHAT IS THE PERCEIVED
EFFECTIVENESS As DETERMINED BY DIRECT AND
INDIRECT USERS? AND WHAT ARE THE COSTS AND
BENEFITS OF MI-CASHE?

REVISION REQUESTED: N/A

CATEGORY: 1-A,C.E

APPROVAL DATE: 12/20/94

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'(UCRIHS)
review of this project is complete. I am pleased to adVise that the
rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately
prOtected and methods to Obtain informed consent are appropriate.
herefore, the UCRIHS approved this project including any revision
listed above.

RENEWAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with
the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to
continue a project be ond one year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with t e original approval letter or when a
prOjeCt is renewed) to seek u dated certification. There is a
maXimum of four such expedite renewals possible. Investigators
wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit it
again or complete reView.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human
subjects, rior to initiation of t e change. If this is done at
the time O renewal, please use the green renewal form. To
revise an approved protocol at anv other time during the year,
send your written request to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised
approval and referencing the project's IRB # and title.. Include
in your request a description of the Change and any reVised
instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS]

CHANGES: Should either of the followin arise during the course of the
work, investigators must noti UCRIHS promptly: (l) roblems
(unexpected Side effects, comp aints, etc.) involVing uman
subjects or (2) changes in the research environment or new
information indicating greater risk to the human subjects than
existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.

If we can be of any future help, lease do not hesitate to contact us
at (517)355-2180 or FAX (Sl7)3 6- 171.

Sincerely,

   

avid E. Wright,
CRIHS Chair '

DEw:pjm

cc: Ann E. Austin

APPENDIX C
INFORMATION ON CASHE—COLLEGE AID SOURCES FOR
HIGHER EDUCATION INFORMATION

APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR MI-CASHE—MICHIGAN-COLLEGE
AID SOURCES FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

160

 

:: ational College Services,Ltd. l CASHE
600 S. Frederick Ave.. Second Floor pres“ S """
Gaithersburg. MD 20877 Phone 301t258~0717 COLLEGE AID SOURCES FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
FAX 301.’258-0164

 

 

 

 

MSFAA ’92
CASHE - College Aid Sources for Higher Education

******************************************

I. What is CASHE?

CASHE is a sophisticated. yet user-friendly, ﬁnancial aid and scholarship retrieval system. Using the
CASHE system. students interested In ﬁnancial assistance for their higher education can search for
sources of ﬁnancial support from a compendium of an estimated 4,100 sources. 14.000 resources
and 150.000 resource distributions as deﬁned below.

Source: this is the agency or Institution that sponsors the funds.

Resource: these are the different types of resource distributions or funding titles that
a source sponsors: i.e. B.P.W.. The Business and Professional Women's
Club (the source) sponsors ﬁve (5) scholarships for women returning to
college. another scholarship for mature women majoring in engineering and
another for women majoring in accounting. The various awards (resources)
would account for three (3) resources sponsored by one source.

Resource

Distribution: these are the number of awards that are included In each resource: (1.8.:
the B.P.W. (source). sponsors three (3) scholarships (resources). and there
are ﬁve (5) (resource distributions) for mature women returning to college.

These resources include leads on 13,911 scholarships. 713 fellowships, 318 loans, 83 internships,
and 95 work cooperative programs. The database allows for the discovery of aid for both
undergraduate and graduate assistance.

II. Why would an institution use a ﬁnancial aid resource system?

A ﬁnancial aid resource system can be a valuable resource tool if the institution and students make
full use of its potential. For high school. it is an excellent service to make available to their students.
As a high school counselor works with a student. this ﬁnancial aid resource system has been used
in conjunction with the college selection and admissions process. As federal aid continues to
tighten, students need to apply for all resources apprOpriate to them. It is also imperative for a high
school student to have as much ﬁnancial aid information on colleges to which they are applying.
Many times the aid available inﬂuences the high school senior's college choice.

For a college or university. this system can be used in several creative ways. Some universities
enclose the student application with their ﬁnancial aid packet that they send to all prospective
freshmen and transfer students (recruitment). They do the same for all upperclassmen and
graduate students (retention). Alumni /ae ofﬁces have funded this service to allow the student body.
alumni/a9 and their families the opportunity to locate funds. Some universities place it in the
libraries for maximum exposure to students.

Some universities charge their students a modest amount for their student profile. Mainly. it places
a value on the {trafﬁc which mediates the Stl'dor': to “new '19 and hr. persistent. It also helps
defray the university's cost to lease the system.

This automated system will streamline the high school and college counselors' awesome task of
providing students with the most up-to-date financial aid information. The Public Relations that
comes as a result enhances the counselor's and institution’s reputation.

 

 

161

 

 

_—National College Services.Ltd. (:ASHE
. , . presents ..... a
UGO S. FfédQTlCi-i Ave. Second Floor

Gazthcrs‘curg. MD 20877 Phone: 301 '255-0717 COLLEGE AID SOURCES FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
r'.-'t.\ Jag. -JO-DiD-‘r

 

 

ill. Why select CASHE over other services? What is unique about National College Services, Ltd.
and the CASHE Financial Aid Resource System?

When making this decision. a potential user needs Information on the company which reflects on
the product it offers.

Over the last twelve years. CASHE - College Aid Sources for. Higher Education was developed
by National College Services headed by Dr. Herm Davis. President. This collection of ﬁnancial aid
information has grown out of need to have a central library of information to assist students as they
look for ways to fund their college education. Dr. Davis has been in the ﬁeld of ﬁnancial aid for over
twenty-four years and works directly with high school and college students and their families in our
counseling center as they develop a plan for financing their higher education. Our mission is one
of counseling and educatia; students and parents on how to meet college costs.

NCSL also has active on-going afﬁliations with several organizations who have the same mission:
to provide up-to-date ﬁnancial aid information to students as they look for resources to fund their
higher education. NCSL has affiliations with such ﬁne organizations as The American Legion. The
US. Department of Defense Dependent Schools. The Fannie Mae Corporation/Woodson High
School (DC) Mentor Program, BNA - The Bureau of National Affairs. and community financial aid
workshops in the area high schools and the monthly workshop at Sandy Spring Bank of Maryland.

1
Last sﬁ‘n’éer. NCSL presented the CASHE Financial Aid Resource System to the United States
Department of Education. Mr. John McCarthy, Director of the Division of Training and Dissemination
and a member of his staff came to our ofﬁce in Gaithersburg to see ﬁrst-hand the CASHE program
and future plans They feel NCSL 'offers a valuable service to the ﬁnancial aid community and
particularly to students and their parents'. Please see the letter from Mr. McCarthy enclosed.

CASHE is a twelve (12) year old. proprietary ﬁnancial aid resource system. CASHE has been
developed at NCSL's main ofﬁce and tested by our 600 plus users. The quality of the information
in the CASHE program is due to the intense, systematic annual veriﬁcation and daily updating
process. NCSL is in frequent contact with its users as well as potential users. This communication
and input benefits CASHE and the user. They have come to know that the NCSL staff is real.
creditable and here to stay. The unique companion to the CASHE system is the Federally Approved
need analysis system called EPSILDN which uses Congressional Methodology to calculate the
parent and student contribution as well as determining the PELL Grant results Using these two
systems. a counselor can go through the entire ﬁnancial aid process with a student

All the affiliations and services just described contribute to the foundation of NCSL which is reflected
in the quality and superiority of the CASHE Financial Aid Resource System. '

The cost to lease the CASHE system has been based on several factors to make the system
affordable for all institutions. it is scaled according to the size of the institution and whether or not
they charge the student

As you receive our information. please do not hesitate to cell with any questions you may have. We look
forward to working with you!

Dr. Herm Davis. President
Ms. Josey L Vierra. Director of Research and Development
Ms M. Carol Daigle. Director of Marketing and Publications
. Ms. Brooke C.‘ .Batteiger, Assistant Director of.Research and Development. '- ..
Ms. Mary Jane Hays. Ofﬁce Manager

 

 

 

162

 

MFCASHEO

Michigan Higher Education Assistance Authority
Michigan Higher Education Student Loan Authority
Office of Support Services Programs

P.O. Box 30428

Lansing, Michigan 48909

 

 

 

The following is designed to assist you in filling
out your student application form. Your individual-
ized financial aid profile is based on each one of
the selection criteria. It is important that every
item be filled in as completely as possible.

Please remember that your selection of resources
will be based on your entries. Generally. the
more complete the information you provide. the
better your chances to receive appropriate finan-
cial aid information.

GENERAL DIRECTIONS

indicate the appropriate code for each criteria by
referring to the attached code sheet. The code

sheet should also refresh your memory as your

hobbies. interests. and the various clubs in which
you have participated. if entries/items do not ap-
pear on the code sheet. you can assume that we
currently do not have an award on file for that en-

tw.

SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS

01-06 List applicant's current information. Do not
leave any blank spaces.

07 Provide codes for country. state. county. and
town of residence. Enter “00' if no code is
found. If your county 8: town are not found
in the code book list, you may leave the
spaces blank. Not all codes are listed.

08 Please indicate the six digit code for your high
school and state abbreviation. if you do
not know your high school code number.
call your high school administration office.
or see your guidance counselor.

09 indicate the correct code for the degree. if any.
that you currently hold.

10 Test Scores. Enter SAT Verbal and Math
scores individually, ACT Composite. GRE
Verbal and math scores. LSAT Composite.
and individual MCAT scores.

11

12

13

14

15

16
17

18

19
20

21

Please indicate current year in school. If in
high school — freshman 9. sophomore 10.
etc. if college or graduate school — fresh-
man 13. sophomore 14. junior 15. senior
16. master’s degree 17. doctorate 18. post-
doctorate 19.

Enter the academic year in school for which
you are seeking ﬁnancial aid information.
Many awards are based on your level of
college education (i.e. freshman 13. sopho-
more 14. etc.).

Enter cumulative grade point average based
on a perfect 4.0. Do not weigh ‘honors"
classes more than others. However. if you
do not list your GPA. it will automatically

be listed as .10. This will eliminate you

from being eligible for award matches

based on GPA achievement or require-
meni.

Indicate class rank of 1 (upper 20% or 3.4
and above). 2 (upper 40% or 2.8 and
above). 3 (upper 60% or 2.4 and above).
etc.

indicate your current enrollment status, full-
time. part-time. and/or transfer student.

indicate (F) for female and (M) for male.
Enter current age.

Enter current marital status (i.e.. Single-S.
Married-M. Widowed-W. Divorced-D. Sepa-
rated-P).

Indicate appropriate race code(s).

As a general rule. select appropriate code(s)
if at least two of your grandparents are de-
scendants of a heritage. The only excep-
tion is American indian. one grandparent is
sufficient.

Indicate yes or no if a US. citizen. Please
check the appropriate box to indicate your
current citizenship status.

 

 

163

 

22 indicate religion code. if other, code '00'. 33 Intended coilege(s). Please provide college
name and specific campus. Also indicate
23 indicate appropriate handicap code(s). if not the state code(s) and country code for the
handicapped enter ‘0'. location of the coilege(s) you are most in-
terested. (Note: Not all colleges are repre-
24 List one or two possible career codes. sented in the system.)
25 include past and present activity codes. Veter- 34 indicate with a check in each box to select
ans indicate appropriate code. which type or types of coilege(s) you are
considering.
26 include up to three hobby codes.
35 Please indicate if either or both of your
27 indicate both paid and volunteer work codes. parents are deceased.
28 include sports code(s) in which you have the 36 Please indicate yes or no for whether either
interest and ability to participate on an in- of your parents are a veteran.
tramural level.
37 indicate branch of service if your parent was
29 indicate code(s) which best describe your aspi- a veteran.
rations. These should reflect your per-
sonal or professional goals. 38-39 Please indicate yes or no for these ques-
ﬁons.
30 indicate code(s) which characterize any
unique physical traits. 40 Please indicate any handicap(s) your
parent(s) may possess.
31 Many sponsoring agencies define ﬁnancial
need differently than the federal guide- 41 Please indicate your Parent(s) Employer(s)
lines. Need is based on each individual from those listed on the codes. (Note: Not
award. For this reason. we suggest you all employers are represented in the sys-
choose yes. Appropriate responses for 31 fem.)
are yes or no.
42 indicate codes for organizations in which
32 Please code all possible majors. Be sure your parent(s) hold membership. if your

to include “family of majors” (i.e., business
administration. economics. accounting. fi-
nance)

parent(s) is/are deceased. list organiza-
tions in which active status was held at
time of death.

 

“Ml-CASHE° is an information service. Ml-CASHE° does not sponsor an award program
nor does Ml-CASHE guarantee that participants will receive awards.”

 

 

 

Michigan Higher Education Assistance Authority
Michigan Higher Education Student Loan Authority
Statement of Compliance with Federal Law

The MHEAAIMHESLA comply with all Federal laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination and with all require-
ments and regulations of the us. Department of Education. it is the policy of the MHEAAIMHESLA that no per-
son on the basis of race. color. religion, national origin or ancestry. age, sex, marital status or handicap shall be
discriminated against, excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of. or othemise be subjected to dis-
crimlnetlon in any program or activity for which it is responsible or for which it receives financial assistance from
the 0.5. Department of Education.

 

 

Ml-CASl-IE° is a Michigan presentation of the CASHE° system. College Aid
Sources for Higher Education - CASHEc Is the registered trademark of the
National College Services, Ltd.

 

 

 

164

 

blank. See general directions.

iNSTRUCTlONS: Complete all entries. Your completed entries
will be entered into a computer program which will compare them
to a database of resources. Use the attached code tables for items
indicated with a black box. if there is no code. leave the code block

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social Securityff LI I I-I I I-LL I | I .Work Experience I_I_J I_I_I I_L_I
01 Name MI ‘F‘m’ rm.) Sports I_L_I l_.I_I IL
02 Address -.— _Aspirations —--— - _I_|__I-I_I__I
03 City Physical Traits I_I_I I_I_i
04 State LLJ 05 Zip Ll l l J i-LLI i l 31 Apply forflnancial aid with need? or on

 

06Phone LL] I-LLI I-Ll I I I

 

College Majors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. iiiiLiiiLiilLLLillli
ﬁResrdence CountryIIII StateIII IIIILIIIIIIIIIIIILLI
County I I I TOW" I I I ”- intended Colleges(indie—ateSl-a-t-e—a-n’d-Campus) .-.-. H— -
03 High School L i I i l I IHigh SchoolState I I I 2 :1
09 Degree Status 3 7)
0=No Degree 2=Bachelor's 4=Doctorale
1=Associate's 3=Master's ________ 4) 3)
10 Test Scores College Statels)| I I I I ICoilege Countryi I I I
SAT Verbal LLLJ Math L_I_Ll ACT COMP l | i
GRE Verbal I | | | MathI | ILJ LSAT I I I I 34 College Type Public 3 Private 9
MCAT Verbal _I Physical Sci . 2W D 4 Y'- J _
Biological Sci I Writing ____ _ PARENT lNFORMATION:
Use Following Chart for items 11 and 12 35 Parent(s) deceased .3 O 31 32
11=High School Junior 16=Coliege Senior
12=High School Senior 17=Master's 36 Parent(s)veteran(s)? IJY .iN
13=College Freshman 18=Doctorate _ I I
14=College Sophomore 19=Post Doctorate Branch °l Servrce '—I—I-—-‘
15=Coilege Junior 00=N°t Attending 38 Parent(s) killed in action? DY LJN
11 C rent Year 'n School I
u r I J—J 39 Parent(s) disabled in action? ='_'iY JN
12 Year of financial aid interest ' . ‘
GPA LI 14 Cl R---k— - LJd m Parent(s) Handicap(s) I_.I U
13 I I I ass an ._ _._- __-.._ _. . . __- ____. .
' . .Parent(s)Empioyers I I I I LL] i_ I.__-___
15 Enrollment Status: Parent(s) Activities
FuiiTimeCi PartTimeCl TransferD I I I II I I ILI IIII IJLIII
16 Sex U 17 Age LI._I 18 Marital Status I._.I

include financial aid with passed deadlines? Ci Y :i N

 

.Race(s)I_I LI Heritage(s)I' I I LI I LL I

 

 

indicate all types of awards in which you are interested:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21 us, Citizen :1 Y Q N permanent Visa D Y ~'.’_] N Scholarships ’3 Fellowships 'J Loans '2) Work 3 internship 2.!
Foreign Citizen 3 Y O N , Complete form and man with check for $15.00 to:
Religion I I I Handicap(s) LJ '._i "Imago
— J Michigan Higher Education Assistance Authority
Career ODIECIIV9(5I I__I__I LLJ Michigan Higher Education Student Loan Authority
. Ofﬁce of Support Services Programs
EStudent Activities P.o. eox'soaze
UIIIIIIIJJILIIJLLII ”n'mm'mmm

.Hobbies I I I | I I | I I mmmmumul-cme".

ONCSL 1995 B GEN 105 NCSL

 

165

 

CODE BOOKLET

 

To be used to complete the student application formats,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COUNTRY oso KWAIALEIN zol warm as ANGOLA Bi eREMERToN
too KIRIeATI zoo WEST INDIES Eo ANNAPDLIS vo aREVARD
Iol KOREA zoo WESTERN SAMOA 02 ANNEARUNDEL us oREwerR
000 "~54 loo KUWAIT zo- YEMEN AK Po oRIDGEPDRT
00‘ ‘05" Too zoo YUGOSLAVIA al De CRISTOL
002 AFGHANISTAN lot LECANDN zoo zAIRE C1 ANTELDPE xo oRoNII
00° we too LESOTHO 207 ZAMBIA J4 ANTIDCH KL eRDDKLINE
00‘ “GER“ loo uaERIA zoo zIMeADWE a: NO BROOKLYN
g WEWWM iDT ugY’AﬁE Ae APPALACHIAN COUNTIES (a); BROOME
loo u c NSTEIN a APPLETDN oRDWARD
00" ANTARCTICA toe LuxEMSOURG STATE zo ARAP DR CROWN
00' ANGOUI Ilo MACAO Io ARLINGTON DD eUCHANAN
009 Milt-3WI m MADAGASCAR oi ALAaAMA :IC ARMSTRONG Po SUCKLAND
01° ARGENTINA 112 MADEIRAISLANDS oo ALASKA so ARNOLD AA BUCKS
0" 3‘ Ils MALAWI as new OS ARODSTOOK H2 BUFFALO
0‘2 “5M4 m MALAYSIA 04 DR ARTESIA 9R SUNOOMCE
0‘3 “’57” us as CALlFORNlA Y2 ASCADERO ls BURKE
0“ 420353 Ito MALI oo COLORADO 7R ASHE IE aURLINGTDN
0‘5 WM m MALTA or CONNECTICUT P.I ASHFIELD To BUTLER
01° WM" Ira MARTI oe DELAWARE DE ASHLAND Ea CUTTE
0‘7 mums" Its MARIANA ISLANDS sr DISTRICT OF CDLUMeIA 7U ASHTASULA or euxTDN
m mm lzo lSLANDS oo FLORIDA DA ATCHIsoN 3M CABELL
0'9 BELGIW m MAURITANIA Io GEORGIA SE ATLANTA zs cm
020 “U25 Ia MAURITIUS II HAWAII T1. ATLANTIC 00 CALAls
03‘ BENIN 123 M I: IDAHO TN ATLANTIC oEACH co CALAVERAS
092 353W m MIDWAY ISLANDS Is ILLINOIS 4e AUSURN IM CALCASIEU
WM Izs MONACO i4 INDIANA oe AUDRAIN 2s CALDWELL
02‘ BOW“ 12o MONGOLIA is IOWA as AUGLAle so CALHOUN
025 BOTSWW 127 MOROCCO Io KANSAS GT AUGUSTA ss CALLAWAY
096 ML Ian 17 KENTUCKY u AURORA Dz CALUMET
027 ﬁlm's“ WW" ISLANDS 12: MARCH Ia LOUISIANA Ws AUSTIN cs CALvERT
023 BRUNE' PAWS-“W Iso NAURU Io MAINE eR AVERY UF CAMANo ISLAND
029 Bin-GM") 131 NEPAL 20 MARYLAND Al AVON oN CAMSRIA
03° BURMA m NETHE 21 MASSACHUSETTS To SAKER 12 CAMIIRIDGE
031 WWW' no NEW CALEDONIA 22 MICHIGAN oz BALDWIN AC CAMDEN
032 W300“ I:M NEW we as MINNESOTA 4H oALDIMNsvlLLE o7 CAMERON
033 CAMEROON Ias NICARAGUA 24 MISSISSIPPI 04 eALnMORECITY 'n CAMPaELL
03‘ CANADA Isa NIGER 2s MISSOURI De eALTIMoRE COUNTY uz CANAAN
035 CANARY 'SUWDS m NIGERIA as MONTANA DA BANGOR .ID CANNON
035 CAPEVE E Isa NIUE ISLAND 21 NEBRASKA eT SARAGA vr CANTON
037 CAYMAN! S no NORTHERN IRELAND 2o NEVADA OJ CAREER PD CAPE CODE
03' GEM “WW “Em“: no NORTH KOREA 29 NEW HAMPSHIRE os CARDDUR E2 CAPE EUZAoETH
03‘ CHAD m NORWAY so NEW .IERSEY as EARNES 7a CAPE MAY
0‘0 WLE 142 OKlNAWA 31 NEW MEXICO Na aARNsTAaLE VN CAPE VINCENT
0" CNN“ us 32 NEW YORK zc CARRY CP TAN
0‘2 0‘10“” m PAKISTAN so NORTH CAROLINA T2 eARTHDLDMEW Eli CARBON
0‘3 COMOROS us PANAMA 34 NORTH DAKOTA Tv eATAVIA 22 CARLIN
0“ 50 us PAPUA NEWCUINEA as OHIO Ne um I: CARNEY
0‘5 COOK lSl-AND m PARAGUAY so OKLAHOMA vo BATTLE CREEK Do CAROLINE
0‘5 COSTA “CA 148 PERU 31 OREGON IW MY CITY as C
0‘7 CUBA us PHILIPPINES so PENNSYLVANIA Ix aEAUPORT or C
0‘0 CY US Iso POLAND so RHODE ISLAND E2 eEAUMDNT aK CARVER
0‘9 CZECHOSlOVAK'A ISI PORTUGAL 40 SOUTH CAROLINA 1L SEAURECARD DD CASS
050 0 5" 152 PUERTD RICO 4i SOUTHDAKDTA sc aEAVER 2K CATAWBA
05‘ WNW“ is: DUATAR 42 TENNESSEE so oEAVERTDN z.l CATOCTIN
051’ “"30"“ 154 REUNION 43 TEXAS 7C oEDPoRD .iJ CATOOSA
053 W‘WALWO‘WN'CA Iss ROMANIA u UTAH Yo SELLEAIR aEACH TC TRON
06‘ W'N'W REPUBLIC Iso RWANDA 45 VERMONT s7 BELLEFONTAiHE Do CATTARAUCUS
055 ECUADOR Isr SAN MARIND 4o VIRGINIA 1K BELLEVILLE Yo CAYCE
05‘ EGYPT Isa SAD TOME: PRINCIPE 47 WASHINGTON NP CELLEVUE Yc CAYUCA
057 EL SIN-"‘00" 159 SAUDI MA to WEST VIRGINIA DK BELLFLOWER as CECIL
050 ENGLAND too SCOTLAND Io WISCONSIN 1A CELMDNT zz CEDAR
059 EQUATORIAL GUINEA tor SENEGAL so WYDNoNG To BELOIT DP CERRITDS
:0 ELIIIDPIA too SEYCHELLES Is CENICIA a gmgmgm
' 163 SIERRA LEONE v7 SENNETTSVILLE
0'? FINLAND Isa SINGAPORE .COUNI WT OWN Iw oENNlNGToN 09 CHARLES
033 FEDEMREMICOFGEWY 165 liOLWONISLANOS AR BENTON s NV CHARLESTON
064 FRANCE too SDMAUA Do COUNTY NOT SPECIFIED oE BERGEN HR CHARLOTTE
065 FRENCH POLYNESIA IoT SOUTH AFRICA VI. AsoEVILLE zD RIEN YR CHARLOTTESV'LLE
0“ FRENCH GWM loo SOUTH KOREA MK so aERKELEY DD CHASE
06" GABON too ST. HELENA CH ADAMS o3 BERKS 0H CHATTANODCA
0" GAMBIA no SPAIN II ADDISON so CERKSHIRE CD CHAUTAUOUA
0“ GWWWV m RILANILA iP ADRIAN La aERNAULLO CV CHAVES
07° GHANA m ST. KITT FX AGAWAM P2 oERNARDSTDN MC CHEMUNG
071 GIBRALTAR 173 ST. LLCIA Kg m 2x centre at CHENANGO
071’ 5555 m ST. VINCENT 3A ALAMANCE so BETHESDA Po CHEROKEE
on 5 17s SUDAN as ALAMEDA TM BETHLEHEM KA CHESAPEANE
07‘ 635“” In SURINAME YA ALBANY De BETTENDORF vs CHESHIRE
075 GUADELOPE m sWAzILANo Ma ALSEMARLES 2N SEVERLY Ao CHESTER
075 W m SWEDEN LA ALBERT LEA xo BEXAR PP CHESTERFIELD
0‘" GUATEW In Do A re sIDDEPoRD sc CHEVY CHASE
07' 9W9 loo SYRIA so ALEIIANDRIA 2U IIIG HORN as CHEYENNE
07’ w"5"3'55w lot TAHITI 2F ALEXANDRIA BAY so BIGFORK Ia CHICAGO
°°° 90"“ Io: TAIWAN 72 ALLECAN 3v eIRMINGHAM us CHICKAMAUGA
°‘” W“ loo TANZANIA CA ALLECANY uv eI IC CHICO
“'9 "mm rel THAILAND DI ALLEGHANY BL BLAIR GN CHICDPEE
m HONGKONG ,“ TOGO 2C ALLEGHENY J. BLEDSOE 40 CHILTON
0“ WW loo TONGA so ALLEN or: oLDDMINGTDN 9A CHIPPEWA
“'5 “W m TRINIDAD/rouse AD ALLENDALE LT CLDUNT cs CHISAGO
°°° “0" too TUNISIA so ALLENTDWN oW BLUEFIELD TD CRITTENDEN
0'7 WES" lee Tun AD ALUANCE EP eLUPPToN AREA Ia CHOCTAW
09' "W“ too TURKSICAICDS ISL A9 ALPENA YY cu CHOUTEAU
0'9 “*0 lot TUVALU AP ALPINE so DONNER SPRINGS zY CHOWAN
0” new In A m “TOMA 7’ 5. CINCINNATI
03‘ 'SLEOFWW too UNITED ARAo EMIRATES MR AMADDR xo SOONsaDRo R9 cum
“'9 BM Isa UNITEDKI we D so COSTON CITY CI CLALLAM
one "A” Ills URUGUAY HM AMHERST NO BOTHEU. v: CLARION
°9‘ NWTM Ills USSR. Ys AMISTAD DD SON so CLARK
095 Mm In US. VIRGINISLANDS CA ANCHORAGE zL eoxaoRDUGH CE CLARKE
0" WA" Isa VENEIUELA N4 NDERSDN 1C CDYERTDWN as CLAY
0'7 mm m ov ANDDvER xv CRADPDRD CY CLAYTON
“P “5”" zoo WALES so ANDRDSCDGGIN zE CRANCH IIR CLEAR SPRING

 

Copyright 1995. All rightsreservedbyNationaiColege ServicesJJd - NCSL

 

166

 

8828333Ré

6

O
)4

BFSSSSQBSEBSSBSR55283388938398883885§32§5£8%3525333858§8

ageeeseseossssg522683222282

 

OOLES

COLLEGE STATION
CQLETON AREA
COLIN

COLONIAL HEIGHTS
COLORADO SPRINGS
COLUMBIA

BﬁSSEQSQQKQE‘88!??893ﬁ98369388583523883$888353:3552253263§282R26333233882883;28§53§8ﬂ§338‘¢%338393592§9§

 

FORTH WORTH
FRANKENMUTH
FRANKLIN
FREDERICK
:SEDERICKSDURG

GREAT FALLS

GREATER HAVERVILL AREA
GREATER LAWRENCE AREA
GREELEY

.¢
0

3??5333§53E85836282325§689$398893888236§S89E35EESSSBERF38

368359

.e
.

SRSECEESSSSEQSERRESEESRazaeagssssSassoegsssaz

.e
on

 

JANESVILLE
JEFFERSON
JEWELL

NMATA

885ﬂ5583353535i£8§§296388855823266:3ESQSQBGSCCSEQEG3E565538353865§SF6R2858§5§R59835Q33G982{EG§£E§!§S§8$86§§§CKJ

KENTON

KERN
KERSHAW
KEWEENAW
KEY BISCAYNE

KI

KING AND QUEEN
KING GEORGE
KINGHAM

8852365%“¥8%5

‘
—

ERRSSEQSSZEE§EEEEEQSCEEEiigﬁ¥i§§5235328826253ESQ!!!EQQES#358352!55583i558§82§3593933558ﬁ28§§§3358

MARLBORO
MARSHALL
MARTHA'S VINEYARD
MARTIN

MARTINEZ
MARTINSVILLE
MASON

MCCORMICK

MINNEAPOLIS
MINNETWKR
MITCHELL
MOBILE
MOOOC
MOUNE

MGR
MOULTRIE

MUHLENBERG
MULTONOMAl-l
MUSCOGEE
MUSKEGON
MYRTLE BEACH
NARA VISA

NASH
NASHUA

NASSAU
NATCHITOCHES
NAUGATUCK

NEVADA CITV
NEW DEDFORD
NEW CASTLE
NEW DURHAM
NEW HAVEN
NEW LONDON
NEW ORLEANS
NEW SHARON
NEW ULM

NEW YORK
NEWARK

NORTH MYRTLE BEACH
NORTH REDINGTON BEACH
NORTH VOLUSIA
NORTHAMPTON
NORTHEASTERN ARNNEsoTA
NORTHWBERLAND
NORTON

NORWALK

NOVA SCOTTA
OAKLAND

OCEAN
OCONEE
OCONTO
OHIO

 

 

tammpHMMJu«nunuwmwymmmquqpSuWasUd-M§l

 

 

 

I

167

 

 

 

 

 

III OIL CITY 05 OUEENSBURY AS SHERBURNE zW TUCKER RI zANE SVI'LLE

29 OOSA 5U RACINE IU SHERIDAN as TULARE RY zELLWOOD

OK OKEECHOBEE or R M SHERMAN 7T TULSA

YL OLDSMAR 64 RAMSEY 0C SHIRLEY TU TUOLUMNE

BN DLMSTED RP RANDOLPH SH SHREVEPDRT VS TWIN FALLS RACE

IL OMAHA RG RANGELEY SR SIERRA US ULSTER

IH ONEIDA RB RAPID CITY DI SIGNAL HILL EG UMATILLA 0 NOT SPECIFIED

06 ONEONTA GO RAWLINS BI SIMSDURY 96 UNION 4 AMERICAN INDIAN

U RH READING FD SIOUII FALLS UP UNIVERSITY PARK 3 ASIATIc

ON ONSLOW AV RED WING AW SISKIYOUS J" UPPER CUMBEIuND DISTRICT 2 BLACK

oA ONTARIO YO REDINGTON BEACH zY SISTERVILLE UR UPSHUR I cAucAsIAN

oI ONTONAGON YR REDINGTON SHORES IIN SLIPPERY ROCK Bo UTICA s HISPANIC

a NGE NW REDMOND ST SMITH J3 VALLEJO B MINORITY

Tx ORANGE BEACH BB RE xs SMITHSBURG VA VALPARAISO 7 VIETNAMESE

OB WNGESBURG RD 232ng FS SNOHOMISH BB VAN BUREN

DL ORLEAN YI M so SOCDRRO BA VAN WE RT

HO OSAGE BU RENO III SOMERSET GO VENANGO HERITAGE
BI RN RENSSELAER EU S 40 VENTURA

02 OSCEOLA BV REPUBLIC 2H SOUTH BEND CV VERNON co NOT SPECIFIED

n DSHKDSH RT RESTON Fz SOUTH HADLEY VI VIGO 05 AFROAMERICAN

IU OSWEGO SW RICE SB SOUTH HAMPTON ROADS VG VIRGIUNA OI ALBANIAN

OR OTERO SD RICHLAND YV SOUTH PASADENA VH VIRGINIA BEACH 02 AMER INDIAN

OT OTSEGO I7 RICHMOND SP SOUTH PORTLAND Rx VOLUSIA 22 AMERICAN

BJ OTTAWA OJ RIDLEY IE SOUTHAMPTON BG WABAUNSEE CB ARAa

Dx OUTAGAMIE Bx RILEY A7 SOUTHEASTERN 2J WADESBORD DI ARMENIAN

JC OVERTON RV RIVERDALE TB SOUTHERN WK WAKE SI ARUMANIAN

OW N u RIVERSIDE T9 SOUTHWESTERN WD WALDO SI BLACKFEET TRIBE
ox OXFORD RR RNERTON TF SPARTA JI WALKER oo CANADIAN

TB RS ROACHDALE F7 SPARTANBURG YB WALKERSVILLE AB CHICANo

B2 OZAUKEE RK ROANOKE SY SPRING CITY zI WALLA WALLA 07 CHINE SE

22 PACIFIC P3 ROCHESTER IP SPRINGDALE BH WALLACE CB CUBAN

GP PAGE RD OCK MS SPRINGFIELD VO WALNUT 42 CZECH

:IJ PALM BEACH RB ROCKBRIDGE 04 ST ALBANS JI WALNUT CREEK as DANISH

YD PALM HARBOR RF ROCKFORD RD ST AUGUSTINE :Io WALTON Io DUTCH

FR PALM SPRINGS RI ROCKINGHAM Ax ST CHARLES SD WALWORTH II ENGLISH

IE PALO ALTO RJ ROCKLAND T3 ST CLAIR zH WAPELLO 13 FILIPINO

PN PANOLA zo ROCKPDRT SJ ST JOHNS U3 WARREN I2 FINNISH

Bl PAOLA VK ROCKVILLE SP ST JOSEPH M3 WARSAW I: FRENCH

OL P 34 ROCKY MOUNT LS ST LAWRENCE IY WASHINGTON M GERMAN

BS PARK RAPIDS xB ROGERS 74 ST LOUIS E: WASHOE IS GREEK

IL PARKER U ROME SI ST LUCI WV WASHTENAW COUNTY 3B GUAMANIAN

zv PARKERSBURG BY ROOKS 29 ST MARY-s ST WATAUGA :IT HAWAIIAN

I3 PASADENA 3U ROSEBUD SB ST PAUL OW WATERBURY u HEBREW

PA SAIC RE ROSEVIu.E YW ST PETERSBURG RS WATERLOO 34 HISPANIC

PD PATAWAT'TAMIE 03 ROWE Yx ST PETERSBURG BEACH F2 WATERTOWN IB HUNGARIAN

N: PAWNEE RL RUNNELS 7x STAFFORD Bx WATERVILLE Io INDIAN

PY PAYETTE 62 RUSH DA STANISLAUS WN WATHENA AS IRANIAN

IF PEARL RIVER OI RUSK IY STANLY AU WATONWAN IT IRISH

KB PEMBROKE RU RUSSELL TY STANTON WS WATSDNVILLE IB ITALIAN

2M PENDER 2T RUTHERFORD UE STANWOOD WJ WAUKESHA I9 JAPANESE

ES PENINSULA RD RUTLAND 7N STARK SM WAYNE :5 KOREAN

UK PENSACOLA AREA JF SACD 9x STARR WY WAYNESBORD 2o LATIN AMERICAN

J2 PEORIA C2 SACRAMENTO SI STATEN ISLAND WD WEBB 2I LATVIAN

CM PERRY YS SAFETY HARBOR SU STAUNTON :IB WEBSTER 22 LEBANE SE

PE PETE RBOROUGH SD SAGADAHOC AT STEARNS IN WEEHAWKEN 23 MEXICAN

CB PETE RSBURG OS SAGINAW SA STEPHENVILLE BJ WELCOME 2: NORWEGIAN

P9 PETTIs 7G SALEM SJ STERLING WO WELD II OTHER

Px PHEI’IIX CITY BN SALINA so STEUBEN WA WELLS 25 POLISH

6T PHILADELPHIA Iv SALINE sv STEUBENVILLE v2 WELLSVILLE 2B PORTUGUESE

SS PHILI IPS SL SALUDA SK STEVENS Y7 WEST COLUMBIA 53 PUEBLO OF ACOMA TRIBE
R4 PHILUMATH SD SAMSON sz STOCKTON 96 WEST PALM BEACH 27 PUERTO RICAN

A3 PHOI NIx XJ SAN ANTONIO 2B STOKES ZR WEST SPRINGFIELD 20 RUSSIAN

Pc PICKE NS TI SAN BENITO SN STONE SW WESTBROOK :IS SAMOAN

JA PICKIzT'T 07 SAN BERNARDIND III STONE MOUNTAIN WR WESTCHESTER 29 SCOTTISH

FU PIER :E 40 SAN DIEGO AY STORY 4C WESTMORELAND AS SERBIAN

Go PIKE Cs SAN FERNANDO CD ST’RAFFORO IO WESTON :0 SPANISH

Do PIMA TD SAN FRANCISCO 20 SUDBURY IN WESTPORT :II SWEDISH

UI PINE BB SAN GABRIEL AF SUFFIELD OB WHATCOM I7 SWISS

PG PINEGROVE C9 SAN JOAQUIN GT SUFFOLK WE WHEATON AB TAIWANESE

PF PINELLAS M SAN JOSE so SULLIVAN JD WHITE 43 um

YP PINELLAS PARK 37 SAN LUIS OBISPO TI SUMMIT WT WHITE PINE so WELSH

BB PIPESTONE c3 SAN MATEO NORTH 60 SUMNER PW WHITE PLAINS S2 ZUNI TRIBE

IJ PITTSBURG CA SAN MATEO SOUTH Ev SURRY GZ WHITINSVILLE

H6 PITTSBURGH SS SANDERS 00 SUSOUEHANNA WP WICHITA 22 E Ll GIO N
VA PIT'T’STON as SANDWICH sx SUSSEX os WICOMICO R

FG PITTSYLVANIA IA SANFORD 3T SWNN GU WILBRAHAM

PL PLAc ER GM SANGAMON 2P SWAMPSCOTT 2L WILKES 2o AMERICAN BAPTIST
9V PLAT TEVILLE OD SANGERVILLE CD SWIFT WA WILL OI BAPTIST

IY PLEASANT HILL BB SANTA BARBARA FN SYRACUSE 9v WILLACY :II BUDDHIST

W PLEASANTON CI SANTA CLARA AB TACOMA . WM WILLIAMS CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
MB PLUMAS $2 SANTA CRUZ 2I TALBOT WL WILLIAMSBURG 20 CHURCH OF BRETHREN
TJ PLYMOUTH SF SANTA FE ‘G TALLADEGA IIT WILLIAMSPORT IB CHURCH OF CHRIST
IT POLK Y3 SANTA MARIA TA TAMPA IR WILMINGTON as CHURCH OF GOD
02 POMONA VAL 2B SANTA ROSA TK TANGERINE BI WILSON o: CONGREGATIONAL
TZ PONTE VEDRA BEACH T7 SARASOTA Yz TARPON SPRI WC WINCHESTER oo DISCIPLES oF CHRIST
BA SA SARATOGA III III as EASTERN ORTHODOx
7P PORTAGE IT SARPY TA TAYLOR I2 WINDSOR CS EPISCOPAL

PS POR‘ER SB SC TH TEHAMA W2 WINNEBAGO 32 EVANGELICAL REFORMED
Iu PORT ERVILLE TD SCHENECTADY 3W TERRELL In WINNSBORO OB GREEK ORTHOOOX
R3 PORT LAND IV SCHOHARI TT TETON IIA WINSLOW 09 ISLAM .

PI PORT SMITH 2R SCHUYLER 7z THOMAS Iz WINSTON-SALEM 07 JEHOVAH s WITNESS
PS PORTS BB U H! THURSTON WO WINYAH BAY m JEWISH

62 POTT AWATOMIE GD SCIOTO XS TIDEWATEH ZU WIRT Io LUTHERAN

GB POTTER AO SCOTT 29 TIERRA VERDE WI WISE 25 MENNONITE

ZT POTI STOWN OW SEAL BEACH OD TIFFIN WII WOOD II METHODIST

‘U POWDER RIVER x7 EATTLE XE TINTON FALLS WG WOODCRIOGE 13 MORWW‘

6L PRAT T TO SEDGWICK VS TIOGA DY WOOOBURY 12 MORMAN

PS PRESOUE ISLE YT SEMINOLE Mo TIPTON LP WOODSBORD 20 NAZARENE

01 PRINCE GEORGE E7 SENECA UN TITUSVILLE BJ WOOOSON 00 NOT SPECIFIED

I7 PRIN .E GEORGES JD SEOUATCHIE TE TOLEDO 24 WORCESTER 34 OTHER

PM PRINCE WILLIAM WW SEWARD BW TORONTO 07 WORCHESTER 2I PENTECOSTR

IR PRIszTON $2 SEYMOUR IT TRANSYLVANIA BK WYANDOTTE Ia PRESBYTEPIAN

U7 PRINILETOWN UC SHASTA zA TREASURE ISLAND WF WYOMING I9 PROTE SW"

OP PRO‘I IOENCE EF SHAWANO OF TREGO EW YADKIN IS QUAKER

B7 PUEE LO Ms SHAWMUT DT TRENTDN EH YAMHILL 23 REFORMED CHURCH
x9 L-AAN TV SHAWNEE 4P TREVORTON BT YANCY IB ROMAN CATHOLIC
7L PUSIMATAHA 9N SHAWNEE MSSION OK TRINIDAD DB YAVAPAI I7 SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST
3V PUTNAM Z7 SHEBOYGAN LS TROUP ON YORK 33 SIKH

00 Y PI SHELBmNE UA TROUTDALE YN YOUNGSTOWN 22 UNITARIAN

1! OJEE‘I ANNES 97 SHELBY TY TROY YU “8A 29 UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST
ON OUEE VS OH SIENAIIDOAH 7J TRUMDULL YM YUMA so UMTED METHODIST

 

CWIM.memNchmsB~mm-NCSL

 

168

 

HANDICAP
EMOTIONALLY

LEARNING DISABIILITY
NON DIC AP

NOT SPECIFIC
PHYSICAL
RESPIRATORY
VISUAL

  

CAREER

C AGRICULTURE
“ ARCHITECTURE

NWSI'RY

MU IC
NOT SPECIFIC
OJTDOM COMMUNICATION

POLI ICS
PRINTING/PUBLISHING
PUBLIC SERVICE

REAL ESTATE
RESEARCH
SCIENCE

EAHIC HIUNGIE
RELIGION/THEOLOG
TRANSPORTATIW INDUSTRY
VOCATIONALITECH NICAL
WHOLESALE DISTRI

 

nun-w...

E STUD ENT
ACTIVITIES
CLUBSIDRCANIzATIONs

037
350
662

CH CLUB

SE"

550
27!

I
”I

§§ ﬁiﬁﬁéﬁ

4”

I72 CHICAGO BOYS CLUB
1M CHRISTIAN ATHLETES
057 CIVIL AIR PATROL

AZ
351 DEBATE/FORENSICS

L
ELECTED CLASS OFFICER
2m FARM CREDIT OF CT VALLEY
MI
012 FUTURE FMAFBIMERS (X AMERICA
Fm! mm G NERO
GIRL SCOUT GOLD AWARD
GIRL SCOUTS
GIRLS ST ATE
GRANGE
HEALTH/PHYS EDUC CLUB
moans WW

$3

§§§§

 

 

050 INTER-COLLEEN?! SPORTS

PORTS

C

N CLUB
LITTLE BROTHEWSISTER IN BIG
BROTHEWSISTER PW
MATH CLUB
NEWSPAPER STAFF
NEW MEXICO BOYS 5 GIRLS

In
‘2‘
23
DIS
“2
167
QC
356
RANCH
ml PATRIOTIC ORDER-SONS OF
AMERICA
3‘9
“I
M5
‘3
m
I

T
AIS PWARD m.

‘29 VIMINIA CREDIT UNIGI
YEARBOOK STAFF

ACADEM‘ DONORS

GOLDEN KEY NAT'L HONOR

SWIETY

JR ACHIEVEMENT APPIJED

Ems

JR ACHIEVEMENT

NAT‘L ACHIEVM MEN‘T
FINAUSTISEMI-FINAUST

NA‘I'I. GOLDKE NNER

NATL MERIT COAMENDED IST

EDUCATIONAL AFFILIATDNS

ALUMNI CF AMIGOS

AMER COLLMEALTHCARE
EXECUTIVES

AMER COLLEGE G PHYSICIANS
AMER SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL
STUDIES

AM SCHOOLSDRIENTAL

237
407

RESEARCH
CAUFORNIA SCHOLASTIC
DERATI
CATHOLIC HS GRADUATE
A

WM COLL
CHRISTIAN HS GRADUATE

HEAD START UATE
INTERCOLLEGIATE STUDIES
IN 5 TUTE
JESUIT HS GRADUATE
MINORITY AT INSTITUTION
MONTGOAERY C’TY PUBUC

N-ON TRADITIOI ALSTUDENT
ORIENTATION LEADESR
SCIENCE WRITING

LLESLEY YCOLL GRAD

II. ASSN MALE CHORUS OF
AMERICA

CHORUSIGLEE CLUB
C
COUNTY YOUTH WRESTRA

NS OIEATTV‘FJ’ERFWNG ARTS
MANASSAS CHORAL SOC

NAT‘L ART HONOR
NAT'L FED MUSIC CLUBS
NAT'L soc G STUDENT

RPRETA
SCOTTISH DRUMMER
TBA SCOTTISH HIGHLAND DANCER
207 SCOTTISH
IS SOLO IAGPIP
03 STATE FED (F MUSIC CLUBS

GREEK SYSTEM

ALPHA ETA RHO
ALPHA GAMMA SIGMA
AUHA KAPPA ALPHA
ALPHA KAPPA PSI
ALPHA LAMEOA DELTA
ALPHA W GAMMA

40
67!
079

677
070
I07

 

ALPHA OMICRON PI

DELTA SIGMA THETA
DELTA TAU DELTA
GAMMA PHI BETA
IOTA SIGMA PI

A ALPHA THETA

KAPPA DELTA
KAPPA DELTA EPSILON
KAPPA DELTA Pl
KAPPA EPSILON
KAPPA KAPPA GAMMA
OMICRON NU
KAPPA OMICRON PHI
CHI ALPHA
MU PHI EPSILON

NU PM KAPPA
OMEGA PSI PHI

 

W NU
OMICRGI THETA EPSILON
I ALPHA THE A

§E§§E§¥£ﬁ§3§§EI

SIE-

IOTA
SIGMA IOTA EPSLW
SIGMA PHI EPSILON

IETA Pm BETA

A7!
4 I 9
I

172
ASSOCIATIONS

ATION
AMER INST OF ARCHITECTS
ASSN OF AMER
GEOGRAPHERS
CALIFORNIA “0A AND
LIBRARY EDUC ASSN
CAUFORNIA TEACHERS

BROADCASTERS
NATL ASSNL OF EDUCATION
PERSGINE
ASSNL OFEXECUTIVE
SECRETARIES
I‘LCAMPERSMIKERS
NASWIAT'IGI
NATL EDUC ASSN
NATL EXECUTIVE
NOJSE PERS
SHEET METAL WORKERS
ASSCXIIA

§ E E? § § § E 5% i S

SPECIAL LIBRARIES ASSN
WW OF THE WORLD

A
8

REM mm
AMER ASSN CRI | ICAL CARE
URSES

RHOLISTIC
AMER MEDICAL WOMEN' S

AMER OCCUPATIONAL

THERAPY

m AMER OPTOMETRIC ASSN

2m AMER OSTEDPATHIC ASSN

AMER PHYSICAL THERAPY
SOCIATIoN

I}

AMER SOCIETY FOR
MICROBIOLOGY
SOCIAIIDN OF OPERATINGI

ROOM
Isa CANADIAN NURSES FED
INFECTIOUS DISEASES

OCIETY
INT‘L CHIROPRACTDRS ASSN

INT‘L SOCIETY OF CUNICAL
LAB TECHNICIANS
JR FELLOW. OB I am
MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSN
NATL UNION

TH
NAT‘L BLACK NURSE S
ASSOCIAT
REGISTERED NURSES ASSN
AR
STATE LEVEL IEDICAL
ASSWATION

SOCIETIES

3* AMER FISHERIES SWIETY

240 AMER NUCLEAR SOCIETY

IAT AMER SOC FOR
ADMIN

AMER SOC 0F

PI-IOT OGRAWETRY

AMER WIDTH CENTURY

STUDIES

CAROLINLS SOCIETY FOR

TRAIMNGIDEVELU’MENT

DID TNESPIAN SOCIETY

us NAT‘L FRATERNAL soc OF

THE DEAF

SOC 0F ARCHITECTURAL

HISTORIANS

SOCIETYOF FAMOTU

3L“ CONSERVATION SOCIETY

STUDENT SOCIETY G
LANAPEDSC APEWKITECTS

B

300
I.)

428

459
I“

278

ENGNEEHIO ”9mm

EMER SWETY N CIVIL

AMER SOCIETY OF
MECHANICAL ENGINEERS
ALER SWETY OF SAFETY
ENGINEERS

ASHRAE STUDENT
H5 ENGINEERINGGCIENCE

ELECT RICH-ELECTRONIC
ENGINEERS

MACHWISTSIAEROSPACE
MI

E NGINEERS

EWNEERS

WOMEN'S ASSOCIA‘I m

m AMER ASSN 6 UNIVERSITY

‘45
m

WOWN IN CWWNICATIONS
WOMEN OFTI‘I ECLA

MILITARY mlm

OTI ACTIVEMI LITARY PERSONNEL

‘5 AIR FORCE SERGEANT EANTS
ATION

AIR FORCE. CAREER

AIR FWE. RESERVE

AIR FmCE SEMEANTS ASSN

All AIR

4“
“I
3“

636
20‘
AC!
G
239
‘40
202

225 DESC FROM VET WWI

VEV.

SUB

CIWOR THY CONFEDERA

DISABLED AMER VETERAN

FLORIDA NAT'L GAR

JR AR.MY’NAVY GUILDD

7| MAYPORT NAVAL BASE
UARD

OPERATION DESERT
SHIELD/S
ORDER OF THE PURPLE
HEART
POW/MIA
RESERVE OFFICERS ASSN
I )
IIOIC AIR Foucl;
393 RTO
m ROTC MARINES

RTO C.N
37‘ SPOUSE AOF NCOA MEMBER
469

LANGUAGES

185 ARABIC LANGUAGE

II? CHINESEIJAPANESE

I” CREOLE

IN CZECWSLOVAK

‘9 DANI ANISH

I82 DUTCH

DIE FLLENT IN “REIGN LANGUAGE
FREHNC

2T
III SOUTH CENTRAL MODERN
AGE ASSOCIATION

235 SPANISH
226 SWEDISH

SH
EMPLOYERS-AFFIUATIONS

ABACUS TEMP SERVICE
AFL-C10 UNION MEMBER

399 ER SONS

I75 AMER FED TVIR'ADIOI ARI ISTS
on AMER RINST OFIAN

‘54 AMER SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE
“I BAKERYICONFECTIONARY

267 BAY STATE MEDICAL CTR

2N CHESTERF
360 CHSK‘FlL-A EMPLOYEE
020

05‘
022

ONS WORKERS
DAB DDPER UNION

164 DAVE‘S LOCKSMITH CO

“9 DAVGAR RESTAURANTS

17B FAR AULT CANNING CD

5“ FEDERAL EMPLOYEE
:m ORIDA INDEPENDENT TIRE

 

CDTWEAWLEATNE R I'DUSTRY
FORD MOTOR CO

I" MAC WT CORP
I“ MARY WASHINGTON UIRARY
PERMNE

425 MCDONAL 'S

‘77 MISSOURI GROCERS ASSN

254 NAT'L ASSN OF TOCACCO
Is: NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEE

DES PRIC CHOPPER ASSOC

370 RETAIL GROCERS ASSN OF

FL
I“ SAM‘ S CLUB

 

 

 

W 1995. A"

 

 

 

EIDNIOBS. LID. - NCSL

 

169

 

«Is SEAFARER'S IN‘T‘L UNION m DEMONSTRATE LE nsm
an SERVICE MERCHANDISE 21o DISPLACED HOMEMAESER p m SPORTS Awumnou COUNSELNGIPERGOHMEL
EMPLOYEE 404 DIVORCEOAMDOWISEP stances
372 TACO JOHN 5 EMPLOYEE 34a DRUG REHABILITATION OI ARCHERY 537 ANN-MANUFACTURING
‘00 U 5 ”NCO“? PROGRAM ‘0 ATHLETIC TRAINER 3” “OSPIIAUW “NW 276 LOLmssI No
112 UNICO NAT L 255 HEALTH CARE w BADMINTON ‘26 INDUSTRIAL ADMIN 23; LIIUNSII I IN( ypl AI‘I UI’ ‘II
072 UNITED FOODICOMMEFK‘JAL :m HOMELESS o2 BASEBALL “(W'ONS
WOWE I‘5 405 HUGH ODRIEH YOUTH 0:! BASKETBALL °9‘ '"SUWE
231 VICTOR F WEAVER. INC “um 04 DOWLIIG 567 PERSGJNEL ADMIN OTHER
“7 WAL- MART 209 um MID-ATLANTIC CREDIT 05 some "5 5’0““ ‘0‘“
m maESLBIUOnDALE SAUL UNION os CHEERLEADING 2‘5 AWWNFAT'ON
I. as INTEREX MEMBEFVS a: CREW n6 ADULT LDUCATION
666 was MARKET EMPLOYEE 045 LIVESTOCK JUDGINGPONSOR 07 cnoss COUNTRY WW ‘9‘ ADV TECH EDUCMIO-Y
as WINN DIXIE EMPLOYEE 179 MEATS JUDGING 29 ANCE 3n BILINGUAL EDUCATION
ANCESTRYWK: TEACHERS CREW WON mu" MANAGEMENT on CHRISTIAN EDUCATION
O9I MORTAR BOARD 32 EQUESTRIAN 535 CONSTRUCTION MGMTI 563 [DUCAIION POLICY
122 AISES MEMBER 153 NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE 0' FENCING SUPERVISOR M? I III um mIM'. [om AIIUN
‘35 “CESIOR‘DEM‘I'ON 0‘ ‘53 NON-COMPLIANCE WITH 09 FIELD HOCKEY 568 HUMAN RESOI II In MGMI "‘I- IIIIHliIIIIIAI I IIIICA‘IIUN
moepgnosucg SIGNER DRAFT ,0 F00 185 INST MGMTI HOUSEKEEPING m IJII IIIA I IIIKZAIIUN
I40 BSN . sons 04: powo o“ NON-SMOKER 11 GOLF 38‘ LABOR REL/STUDIES 42'. I:UH$II.'L. EDUCATION
In CERTIFIED CHEROKEE .55 m” 1, Gmwlcs 27: MATERIALS MGMTIMRKT 3:: POST SECONDARY EDUC
252 CHILDREN OF CONFEDERACY cog PEACE CORPS 36 HANDBALL 5” “mm 530”” “5’“ ‘7' SECONDARV EDUCAIION
332 CONTINENTAL soc OF 023 OUILL mo SCROLL I: ICE HOCKEY :33 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY on SPECIAL EDUCATION
DAUGHTERS OF mow mas m REGISTERED DEMOCRAT I4 LACROSSE “'9 "scams “5" 00‘ VOCATIONMEWCM
I24 COUNCIL-ENERGY RESOURCE 002 ROYAL NEIGHBORSOF 35 mm ARTS “° VOCAI'ONAU‘GR'CUUU“
113 3:3 BROTHERHOOO “an.“ ‘5 ”a“ m"
250 SINGLE PARENT 37 RODEO
I32 DANISH SISTERHOOD an: OR MORE saunas In In RUGaY 093 ENGINEERING
m DAUGHTERS OF PENELOPE INSTITUTION 20 SAILING 3‘3 ‘W “WUSNG
2;; ".5" m Wm“... Y “WW“ 3 ragsvgﬁagaew "6*" MM
NI - HION an 33 5mm R 0‘3 CHEMICAL
M! HUALAPAI 1mg; MEMBER WELFARE RECIPIENT I? SKIING 6' gugas 53$ MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS $32 PAPER
I20 JAME SIMARY TARDY 24 SKIING: WATER ‘57 MARKETIW
“scam E HOBBY ,. 50cc: ons MRKTISALES RETAILING
26! JAPANESE/AMERICAN 25 sonm ‘53 MEI'IC'MNDIISWG CIVIL
CITIIENS LEAGUE 2s ACCORDION an SQUASH ‘0‘ W5": “E"CHWSING
g: ﬁggg‘OETCOLwaus so AGRICULTURE I9 SURFING 5" :Egspapfoﬁnm g“ Tam
A HENA 43 AMA am 20 SWIM VING ”0' no RICULTURE
2a: NAACP so meL‘é" OPERATOR 21 TENNIS ‘ a 1:: PUBLIC RELATIONS Isa ARCHITECTURAL
I28 NATL WELSH AMER FNDN oI ART 22 TRACK I. FIELD m ’"mms‘m 306 CONSTRUCTION
255 PERMANENT RESIDENT-OAS or CHESS 2: VOLLEYBALL 2‘3 “EM 557‘“? "5 CONSULTWG
130 $83ng TL me “ cum“? “55mm 3.3 E~VDRS>~RM$E~TNG
H A ALL! E - M LAN U YI
BR m g gsocvg'ergzgnosmmm 112 COMMUNICATIONS 137 SANITARY
a» «Mamemrm 03 mm .ASPIRATIONS m m smucwm
ALUMNAE on DEBATINGIPUBLIC SPEAKING M AND "L”
290 sCOTrISH RITE 22 DOG BREEDER OR ExHIaIToR as ASPIRE TO ENTER MEDICAL 02, ;
ORGANIZATION on DRAMA/THEATRE SCHOOL 'L“ mm»
131 sons 0.: NORWAY 39 KNITTING DEGREE 5‘5 WRITING-SCREENPLAY 026 ELECTRICAL
253 UNITED 29 MUSIC 06 ASPIRE TO WORK ‘56 COMPUTER
DAUGHTERSICONFEOERACY u PHOTOGRAPHY Wn-IANDICAPPED 33° 'ECWOLOGV
no US$52 SOUTH a EASTERN 12 mmo Io CAREER novmcsusm mm
02 POETRY 09 CAREER CHANG
2:3 VASA MEMaER 05 SCIENCE 02 MINORITY IN FIEED °“ ‘0”me mm
m MLLIAMIBELLE MERCHANT Io SEWING ca FIE-ENTRY INTO THE WORK 2“ m'mmws“
DESCENDANT ‘7 SIWNG ‘WE "3 REPORTING 12A INDUSTRIAL
259 YAKIMA mouw NATION o2 SPORTS ENTHUSIAST m REMAIN m STATE AFTER “5 "“5 PROTECTION ENG“
09 TALENT NARTS GRADUATION 539 FOUNDRY INDUSTRY
I3 VIOLIN oa RETURNING TO SCHOOL ““3 CWW‘NONS AND «4 HYDRAULIC
RELIGIOUS mamas 2o WRITING oI UPGRADE .Ioa SKILLS value uunous 3“ LUBR'C‘I‘Q"
5:: MANUFACTURING
on m: EN 3;; MASSSCHOMMUNICATIONS 051 MINING ,
In AID ASSN FOR LUTHERANS 058 PETROLEUM
m MMMMIWS WORK .PHYSICAL m 'sve”°e‘c~cow
om B'NAI D'RITH TRAIT 5T1 TELECMUN'CAT'ONS
IBI BAPTIST LIFE ASSN EXPERIENCE 3 MATERIALS
I74 CALVARY LUTHERAN CHU H
175 CATHOLIC no ASSOCIATTSN 39 ADMIN/MANAGEMENT BIOLOGICAL TWIN WSW 250 MATERIALS
062 FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH. MN 53 AGRICULTURE 05 DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER 123 CERAMIC
13: mm MISSION seesaw 25 ARCHITECTURE IO HEMOPHELIAC ADVERTISI 223 METALLURGY
m LICENSED MINISTER 35 ART HISTORIAN 09 IMMUNE DEFICIENCY DISEASE 37’ IWWII“TOONING 427 MINERAL
007 LOYAL cums‘nm BENEFIT 37 BANKING OI LEFT-HANDED 017 ARTvCOMWI-‘ICIAL 578 POLYMERS
m LUTHERAN BROTHERHOOD ‘4 BROADCASTING °‘ ”PM" ”5 m “"5
MEMBER I! CHILD CARE 02 RED HAIR 550 GRAPHIC DESIGN
no unusgm m In COUNSELING/GUIDANCE " SPINA B'FIDA IIICIIANICAL
FEDERATION 5!! DESIGN ARTS 00 TALL STATUES
129 NATL CATHOLIC SOCIETY g; EDgCSTIO: am“ 0" MECHANICAL
FORESTERS M I. YE ON-CAMPUS
on PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 5‘ EWINEER MAJORS eon “US'NESS CW‘I'ONS
ou ROYAL AMBASSADOR I: EIREMILIIVOLUNTEER 320 DEBATINGPUBUC SPEAKING omen
UNITED METHODIST 55 EORESTRYcousgm/mm swimwear!“ new 003 ENGLISH COMMUNICATIONS 003 AEROSPACE'AERONAUTICAL
oa sou: “my no OUTDOOR COMMUNICATIONS 451 AERONAUTICAL
17 GOVERNMENT 00? ARCHITECTURE "2 SPEECH 2m AEROSPACE
Gannon; “sum memo“ Is HEALTH/MEDICINE I95 INDUSTRIAL ms 59‘ TECH. COMMUNICATIONS 536 AUTOMOTIVE
26 INTERN m INDUSTRIAL DESIGN 295 BIOMEDICAL
us AMER ANTIOUARIAN SOCIETY 15 JOURNALISM I56 INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY 027 EDUCATION no GENETIC
LIBRARY 10 LAB TECHNICIAN 040 INTERIOR DECORATNG AND 297 GEOLOGICAL
4w AMER “”55”“ [NATURAL AD LIDRAR DESIGN W A ”SW 534 GRAPHICS
”510m 22 LIVESTOCK HANDLING A07 LANDSCAPE AND SIB HELICOPTER
£56 INHALATION ToxIcqogy 5| MINISTER ARCHITECTURE DESIGN 30! ART EDUCATION :06 HVAC
“55m INSTITUTE m MUSEUM “was“ “2 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ”5 EDUC DISTRIBUTION 607 INDUSTRIAL
07 newmﬁen 125 URBAN PLANNING AND 037 HEALTH EDUCATION CONTROLSIINSTRUMENTS
24 NURSE MANAGEMENT :3 :gusgécmécss ms MICROGRAPHICS
ma 6‘ NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY asI NAVAL
20 puma”. 012 BUSINESS m MATH EDUCATION 2m NUCLEAR
m AGRICLLTURAL MECHANICS ‘2 MB! on ”"5”“ EWC‘W 1'99 OCEAN
2:5 AMER FIELD SERVICE 03 RETAIL/SALES 455 SCIENCE EDUCATION m PAPER STUDIESISCIEHCE
pm7apmr 09 SALES am new 2a SECRETARIAL EDUCATION 29 RHOTOGRAMMETRY
on BEAUTY CONTEST INTEREST 0' SECRETARY 5“ 'WW 3'5 ”use 50‘5““ 296 PHYSICS
3 338““ °‘ 35‘ "m'm" g 39:12»
MUNITY SERVICE
ca CREDIT won a: THEATRE EMPLOYEE um mo mac: 3”“ W000 370 TECHNOLOGY
so: CRITICAL :Ioo TEXTILE
“Inmsmm 2II mm 211 CHILD DEVELOPMENT 52I TRANSPORTATION
294 mops JUDGING «Io COMMERCE :Ioo ELEMENTARY EDUCATION :17 VERTICAL FLIGHT
m m mm 9mm 21: names In PRESCHOOL EDUCATION

 

 

 

 

 

WIWsJInWmomdbymchI-goamwnﬂca

 

 

‘I7O

 

HUMANITIES AND
THE ARTS

173 HUMANITIES
212 LIBERAL ARTS

B355
90
‘5
‘1’
2

§§
222
E

9

222232232222222255522522
§ 3
§ 2
g 2
3

2
2

3‘6 AKRICAN UTERA
360 BRITISH LITERATURE
IDI ENGLISH CULTIFIE
0“ LITERATURE

WWW

072 muons ADD TIECXOGY
an IIILICAL STIDIES
5Q CINETIAN STUIIES

 

437 NATURAL SCIENCE
mm

W AGRICLLTURE
216 AGRIDUSINESS

Sﬁiﬁﬁ?
"'32
:2
2
3
§

2

222 “g 225
2
5
I

512 INFO PMCESSI'B
EART'HATMOSPHEM AID
NAME same:

50’ AIR POLLUTION
43 ATADSPI'ERIC SCIENCE

NEW“
440 WOODSCENCEITECH

IIALT'HAIOMLW

237 WW
II. ALLWAWW

 

222222
S
2
i

a
a
.a

m

ETHICAL Hm
FMENSIC AEDICINE
GASTROENTERQOGY
GENETICS
GERONTOLGY
GRADUATE NURSING

i £5§§§£§S§£§§£§§

MORTUARY SCIEICE
MUSIC THERAPY
NEUROLOGY

192 NEUROMUSCULAR KO

218 NEUROPHYSIQOGY
NUCLEAR MEDICINE
NURSING
NURSING. CRITICAL CARE
NURSING. PSYCHIATRC
NURSING. REGISTERED
ORTHOPEDIC MEDICINE
OSTEOPATHIC IEDCINE
OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY

an
II?
009
“7
613 MIDWIFE
052
IS?
268

§§§§§é§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
2
g

2

3E3§§§§§§5

RESPIRATION THERAPY
476 RESPIRATORY MEUCINE
RHEUMATOLOGY

STROKE
THERADGRAPHY
TROPICAL m
TOXICQOGY
mm
WOLOGY

VIROLOGY
VISUAL HANUCAP

§§§§§5§§§§§§2

IATIEIAT'BAL m
439 ACTUARIAL SCIENCE
APPLIED MATH

99

DEMOS
coo GEODESY

 

342 LOGISTICS
on MATHEMATICS
307 STATISTICS
106 SURVEYING

ETHQOGY
SO EXERCISE SCIEIICE
“7 GEOHYDROLOGY
310 IMAGERY SCIENCE
:30 MATERIALS SCIEPCE
259 NUCLEAR SCIENCE
:2 PHYSICAL SCIENCE
MI PLASTICS INDUSTRY

MANAGEMENT

RANGE
on SCIENCE
530 TECH PRODUCTION
109 SOCIAL SCIENCES
WY
an AEOIIGINAL STWY
on: WY
431 CULTURAL STIAIIES
ARCHAEOLOGY
100 ARCHAEQOGY
4.4 EPIGRAPNY
SI: HISTORIC PRESERVATION
369 NUMISMATICS
23$ PALECNTOLOGY
ECONOMICS
ECONONIIC OEVELOPNENT

conoucs
623 NTERNATIGIAL ecououcs
$1 LAND EM

£83
22
:2
E
2

INTERNATIONAL WSS
INT’L REUTIONSGERVICE

2222222
§
§
"8‘
§

3

REHAVIORAL SCIENCE
CLINCAL PSYCHQOGY
INDIVIDUAL ¥MY
RELATIGIS

MENTAL HEALTH
PARAPSYCHCXNY
PAMOGY
PSYCIIATRY
WY

.0“ .
:59 E;

m m
AFRO-AMER STIDIES
AMER INOAN HISTORY
AMER INDIAN STUDES
AMEFICAN HISTORY
AMERICAN SIUOIES
ANCIENT HISTmY

BUSINESS HISTORY

DYZANTINE STUDIES
AUAN STUDIES

CELTIC STWES

MPORARY
EARLY MR HSTMY

ECONOMIC “STORY
EMIGRATION HISTORY
EURCPEAN HISTORY

§§§§§§§§§§5§§¥§§EE§ES

§§§§§§§§§E3§§§§i§35£§§ﬁéé§§§

 

EUROPEAN STWES
FRENCH HISTORY
GERMAN HISTORY
GREEK HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY-FAMILY
INDIAN STUDIES

IRISH STUDIES

ITALIAN STUDIES
ITALIAN AMER STUDIES
JEWISH STUDIES
LABOR HISTORY

LATIN AMER STUDIES
LATVIAN STUDIES
LEGAL HISTORY
MEDIEVAL HISTORY
MEDIEVAL STUDIES
MIDDLE EAST STUDIES
MILITARY HISTORY

PRE-COLUM
RE FORMATION HIST MY
RENAISSANCE STUDIES
STATE HISTORY
TECHNOLOGY “STORY

FOREIGN STUDY
MS AFm

22225822
I

§

I” CART OGRAPHY

220 GEOGRAPHY

JUDICIAL AM

349 JURISPRUDENCE

093 LAW

139 MERCHANT MARINE

OI? MILITARY SCIENCE

450 PRE LAW

I II RESEARCHMVELOPI‘NT
m SOCIAL S I UGES

socw.
on socaowov
OTHER FIELDS

I“! EM

"7 BAKING

I” CONSUMER SMES

can FOOD SCIENCE
TECHNUTRITION

on m ECOIIOIICS

mu: mm

on CRIMINAL mm

239 HEALTH SERVICES AM

132 HOSPITAL ADMINISERVICE

042 LAW ENFORCEMENT M
STRATION

 

WImnmmwNmmmm-ma

 

 

J

171

 

250 NAVY.MARINE CORPS. ACTIVE
no PUBLIC SERVICE pARENT(S) I: SESTEﬁTfé‘Kno I PARENT-(S 524 NggNCOMMISSIONED OFFICER
105 SAF TV ‘4 “OP FARM OWNER
00° mmwmnmm EMPLOYER, 21: HOTEL REsTAURANT EMPLOYEES ACTIVITIE 50' 35331333555”

A MANA EMPLOYEE
270 YOUTH AGENCY ADMIN OCCUPATION :22” SSTCHENS mouSTRIES cw's’mmms e53 OPERGITIIO‘NAGAMEwAROEN
613 IBM 0‘2 AMER LEGION RESERVE OFFICERS ASSN
cos AAAE 015 ILWACO IIOA‘r WORKS Dos EAGLES uo
TIONAUIE u VFW
TEERNG “we“. :23 ESCROQS’IIFG CO 5" ”CE” EMPLOYEE 3'5 EU‘5 as: VIETNAM VETERAN
ooe AEROJET ORDNANCE g: ijgSWE' co co: ExTENsION :ERVCEJCLRS ‘ ”tugs
I” FAMILY CAM
”5 NR CET'EWONNG’ 559 ”£ng NC 20° ”5‘" smuss 5° on FARM CREDIT OF CT VALLEY GREEK SYSTEM
”5‘“ 5mm °°7 ‘L NW co 0.: mg; m LONE 57*" '"WSmES 126 GTE SUN FUN CLUB
571’ “C W mm, ‘5‘ “WI“ cm 026 LUKENS FOUNmno“ 02B MASON 522 ALPHA KAPPA ALPHA
IBI AUTOMOTIVE DII AMALGAMAT'ED CL 10., MmemooT SPECIALTY 6,5 omega; mg PURPLE IQART 430 PHI DELTA KAPPA
5‘0 ""7”" A, CHEMICAL 033 WOMEN'S CLUD In PI KAPPA PHI
g gng‘fgg" ‘33 WRAE‘ATED “'5 as MARTIN MARIETTA CORP
L
241 ggLNosRascneugue 3.5 AMANAngRIGERATION INC. 33 WOMEwwsmm ,5 mm .m mgmm
as ”c " “NJ 254 MCDONYELL-DOUGLAS (WEST)
154 CULINARY ”"5 "7 AME“ ’05 “- co 402 MERIT OIL COMPANY eIe ALLIED INDUSTRIAL REV was OF PENELOPE
370 DIE CASTING 027 AMER STERIUZER 575 “W GAS CO 113 DAUGH AT Aw .
005 ELEM": 75°" 3'7 mm “2 MIGRANT LABORER 2w COMMUNICATION WORKERS cor POLISH N L ANCE
3" LOG" “3 “‘00 MM m MINISTER/MISSIONARY OF AMERICA BROOKLYN ”“5 cm.
one “9"“ “5'5" 233 mm one MISSOURI GROCERS ASSN om DISTRICT COUNCIL 31 no: POLISH m w"
090 FIRE SCIENCE on ATWOOD VACUUM MACHINE 02' NAED EDUC FNON G2 GLASS. ”my". ”sues. “2 SONS or :OSHTERS 0‘
:3: :38 £22332“ 200 2370.07“ m M" EWLOYEEELF ens ISLEIsoLOCAL UNION an m CONFEEDERACY
p . .
570 INDUSTRIAL 0%.?!ng D'Wanssgeggmas 035 23283:: o s WORKERS UNION OF
367 “0057”“ H 32’ AVE" I NAT'L BENEFIT FUND 231: INT‘L BROTHERHOOO mm m, “m“,
“° $3.22?an 1’" WEI? ““5"” " ' 0' ”WW“ ‘WS'E'Z‘E mm mm m“ L A
209 7 NEW ENGLAND LIFE :11 INT‘L LADI u N5
35° "was“ 09‘ BELL “mm 25 INSURANCE COMPANY Tao INT‘L MACHINIST- AEROSPACE :3; msggthg‘wum
591 PHOTOGRAPHIC SCIENCE on BLOCK DRUGS ED 3. nous AFFILIATES coo INT'L MASTERs. MATES AND m, 5; “cm TYIsTAFF
53‘ WWII“ 20‘ WC‘UYE” ”‘o “u as NOBLE DRILLING CORP PILOTS ”New“
573 REWL 550“” CWWE" 135 NON PROFIT ORG TION an NFL UNION OPER ENGINEER
O75 SECRETARIAL STUDIES 091 BROWN A WILLIAMSON “7 MARINE CO 059 INTI UNION 551's”
we %Lgﬁgggs m [73333060 gown" ILL 571 PANNILL KNrrnNG CD so: 82%?" PUBUC EMPLOYEES FARENTISI ALMA MATEII
are SW:
‘6‘ was ‘ CLOWN 03' 30'0”“ m s I: PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC CD as SCREEN ACTORS GUILD 15. APPALACHIAN BIDLE COLLEGE
«4 TRAVEL INDUSTRY INDUSTRIES RN EMPLOYEE on SEAFARER s INT‘L UNION on AURORA UNIV
3“ Eaﬁ‘éﬁ‘é‘é'i'ém “3 SSI'EER‘RSTI‘F‘XEI‘GEM ‘2- PEPP-CW 30m“ m 55%;“ “mm“ '“' ‘ "6 gga’gpﬁ‘f’a‘m“
099 as ANY UNI 154
gm VITICULTURE mo CABOT OIL A GAS C0 549 maps pom; com 525 SHEET METAL wORKERs MT. 137 mu at 5T ELIZABETH
129 VWAIIONAUTECH OTB CAMPBELL SALES 00 m PHILLIP mms ASSN ‘7‘ COLL OF ST FRANCIS
363 WEI-0"“; 029 WW“ "0"“: ”“557 051 PICKANDs MATHER A co m TRANSPORT WORKERS 156 COLORADO CHRISTIAN
"OWE-“I me PILGRIM GLASS co UNION I65 COLORADO STA EEUNIV
00° CMG‘ m Toe PITMAN MOORE. INC Too UAW . CHRYSLER ' IS? DEFIANCE COLLE
.PARENT(S 3*: $222322?“ 0.. ”WINS-WC °°' Wm":2;8°°‘°°“”‘“°“ 2222522222233.“
BRANCH F 3339 CHARLES 57"“ om “‘3 gas; :LOLIEE’SH'E‘RTg-vag 214 UNITED PAPERWORKERS 1:2 EASTERN NAZARENE COLL
‘97 WESTEMELD “‘5 ENFORCEMENT 247 UNITED RUBBER WORKERS FRANKLIN COLLEGE
em CHRIST HOSPITAL ITN Y EMPL 243 UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF .57 FRIENDS UNIV
oeo PRATT L WH E
340 CW” 8 50” '"c R E CHOPPER Assoc AMERICA 169 FROSTBURG sTATE UNIV
STRY “3 P 'C ION EACOM COLL
"3‘ ”n Fm“ RESERVE 019 ggAALsI'ALmEHPI-OYEE 25' PRISON Gum “7 WTEODYISTTSMETIBER m G%%EV$-MERCY COLL
021 AIR FORCE RESERVEIGUARO 052: CONE ms ”MM 52: PUBLIC AGENCY EMPLOYEE :21 USWA If: JGACKSONV'LLE um
""5 ‘° 20* CON” 3;; SIUNOItTglgcCORPORATIGV m LORAs COLLEGE
m ”g FORCE“ “REES. 070 CONSOUDATED 30‘ m Rams ‘ co PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS m “MSMA TECH um,
'0' ”n ”WON“ GUARON 2'2 CONSTRW' m RAILROAD WORKERS 33‘ ”a ”"E "“375 ‘55" Tea MARYMOUNT UNIV
n: 39?;wa W“ 437 CONTINENTAL GROUP ES 12: mm" mm,“ co SID ASAMEs: SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE :1: MOUNT sT MARY'S gEOLLEGE
T
ARMY. IST CALVARY DIV 23.2 gmagg‘ffgmcﬂn aoe RETAIL GROCERs ASSN OF “7 CAL POLY ”gems. ASSN I: :gaxxéG‘UgocsoTL‘LTEE
m ARMY. 37TH DIVIsION 306 “mm “0‘“0‘05 My“ co I43 CAUFORNIA TEACHERS ASSN 2n mums COLLEGE
452 3”: SATEEA’I’H DIVISION 399 05mm" ”‘5‘ 33: ggC~K9VLELL INT'L “° CUMEBSEngsGSEF om NORTHWOOO WWI
1‘ M - 395 MINION UNIV
"WI 3?: 32236! INDUSTRIES 2‘" ”33%;;ng OF 5"". m FARM BUREAU MEMBER :3 gﬁﬁa WV
m ARMY. RESERVE oes DUN ‘ Bmsmg 042 :Emnes «I FLORIDA INDEPEWE'" “"5 as: PHIL COLU BIBLE
3; 282:; 2333 SETEEEAN 5'9 E J- 3m" 5”’L°"EE as SAMUEL ROBERTS FNDN ;g :33- :gg: "“E‘m'ms IS. sT JOSEPH‘S COLLMERCY
‘ E- II HOID' "35 HULLER FUND INC. Tee UNIV OF DETROIT-
nos FIRST INFANTRY DIVISION. ‘7‘ 523 SC . mmgsmucmm E
00' 5‘70" cmmm“ 429 SEABOARD sYSTEM 024 UNIV OF EVANSVILL
ARMY SACHUSETTs POLICE ASSN
LLY AND co 025 MAS . mv oF FINDLAY
m FLORIDA NAI'L GUARD ﬁg 535“," EMPLOYEE m Sago» M m MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU $5: 3”“, 0, mm; pummc‘rou
‘69 MARINES. CAREER 5" EMPLOYEE 0',- NATD ma SERVICWE MERCHANDISE 315 NAT‘L ASSN OF 077 UNIV OF SOUTH CAROLINA
‘°’ mw'iﬁéi' 323 3.331% m FWERMCHE" 335 333mg cm co ‘3‘ "“k‘ﬁi’?’ “m" °°° "5 ”I '0‘“ m9"
255 - RAL EMPLOYEE CAR VALLEY CITY sum
06‘ MARINES. ITH DIVISION g: :ggEML mm con, on ngNNgﬁaggL’Igarggﬁrc 090 “m 0“,“ pm .55.. 3?: “Ln”. so WV
AZ MARMARINES' 333$?“ 5" "35“ “WEN“S' m I: SUODATH VAN LINES ”7 wasnocmgIT-‘sl’ueuc 175 WEST 65°95“ 5°“
AID MERCHANT MARINE F MAR/LEATHER 061 TE cussm TEACHERS mm “mm
Ann 205 025 THE HIBBERT GROUP was
293 NAVY. AVIATION BOATSWAINS 12: FORD MOTOR co ‘35 mmwsmss 004 BNAI B RITH s
460 MW CAREER 3,, [Cox Gmgny co L P on VT ELECTRICAL m KNIGHTs OF COLUMBU
272 NAVY. SEABEES suasmmes 5’5 "WE" 0°“ W RACTORs an MASONIC LODGE-
?” NAVY. SUBMARINE SERV 05‘ FREEMAN COAL MINING 423 T‘CWWNPWAE INC 503 WASHINGTON COUNTY REVOLUTION
210 NAVY. SUPPLY CORPS V a cam 093 - TEACHERS ASSN on PRESSYTERIAN
035 NAVY VETERAN 2:; Eggs"; FOOD Ass" 105 UNION TAN: CIEVSI CO ”WESSON“ cwncn
' 071 UNITED AI LIN a
g 33% 0‘5 GENE“ ELECT“: 319 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE MILITARY AFFILIATDNS "0' "‘5
004 GENERAL ”owns one UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEE
0'0 GENERAL "‘5' '"c an VICTOR F WEAVER. INC 50: ACTIVE DUTY PERSONNEL omen
29" GERBER "‘00 39A WABASH INC 230 AIR FORCE SERGEANTS
m PARENT(S) casuas‘m" 521 WAL-MART n3 AIR FORCE WARRANT OFFICER 515 NORTH AMER “OW-"‘55 "‘9"
ICAP ‘27 GILBERT ASSN'S'T‘SRES as wAUKESHA ENG DIVISION 227 ARMY AVIATION ASSN OF AMERCA ooe PARENTs wITHOUT
HAND 00C GRAND UNION wNICATION mo WEIS MARKET EMPLOYEE 200 ARMY OFFICERS WIVES PARTNERS om m
17! GRW'C C0“ cm WESTAVCO CLUBIGREATER WASH m PERSONNEU ME I emu
o no HANDICAP INTI- WM 122 WESTINGHOUSE «a COLLING AIRFORCE BASE no RESCUE SQUAD- DE scmc
a EMOTIONALLY 0'3 m mom con, oeo WESTMORELAND COAL oee DISABLED AMER VET 492 soUTH CAROLINAREL
2 HEARING 0‘2 GRAPH“: MA MC COMPANY ezs FLEET RESERVE ASSN L as CONsUME 5 00°F
4 LEARNING USWUTV 00’ ““9““ “ one WEYERHAEUSER EMPL 251 FLEET RESERVE. RIVERS .39 SOUTHERN STATE
5 NOT SPECIFIC LEAGUE E .39 WINN DIxIE EMPLOYEE BRANCH CONSUMER
5 PHYSICAL ‘20 GTE “PI-0" 195 JEWISH WAR VETERANS
7 RESPIRATORY 452 HP. Hooo ovo MARINE CORPS TANKERs ASSN
I VISUAL as: HAR BLOCK. INC. ES .53 MAYPORT NAVALBASE
S “SSW at» wmmu

 

 

 

 

Comma” 1995. All 09m: reserved by NDI‘IORDI CoIIege Services. LIa. - NCSL

 

 

APPENDIX D

COVER LETTER, FOLLOW-UP LETTER, QUESTIONNAIRE,
AND COMMENTS

172

MICHIGAN HIGHER EDUCATION
ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY/STUDENT LOAN AUTHORITY

Box 30008. Lansing, Michigan 48909
Phone: (517)373-3399

SARAH M. CRAMPTON

DATE

KENNETH R. FEDERSPIEL

SUSAN P. FORD NANIE
DOROTHY N. FRANK: ADDRESS
ADDRES S
SUSAN I. HANNAH
PHYLLIS It. ROOYMAN Dear

 

TERRY E. LUXFORD

MI-CASHE, Michigan - College Aid Sources for Higher Education,
began in November 1993. Now that the program has been operational for one

”1.1.“: M. MANN

”ML” ‘mms year, the MI-CASHE office is undertaking an evaluation of the program.
M": M- Mm" Evaluating the effectiveness of MI-CASHE includes contacting students and
moms A. ROACH parents who have used it, as well as high school counselors and college

ﬁnancial aid officers who assisted students in using MI-CASHE. This letter is
sent to introduce you to the evaluation process.

MICHAEL J. TAYLOR

CHRISTA L. WALCK
"0m” “"5"" Within approximately seven (7) days I will be contacting you by
man meMs telephone to ask you to participate in the evaluation study. I would like to
“mumscnmn schedule a time to conduct a telephone interview to discuss your general
ExoOﬂicio perceptions of MI-CASHE as a supplemental source of ﬁnancial aid

information. The interview will take approximately ﬁfteen (15) minutes. Your
input is needed and would be greatly appreciated.

Your participation in the evaluation study is voluntary. All information
gathered for the study will be kept conﬁdential. For the purposes of this study,
all responses will be compiled so that no individual responses will be
identiﬁable. Only I, as evaluation consultant, will have access to the
identiﬁcation numbers and individual responses. Copies of the completed
study are expected to be available in late spring of 1995. Please note that I
will also use the data collected as part of my research for a doctoral degree at
Michigan State University.

If you have any questions regarding the evaluation study, I will be
happy to answer them when I contact you, or feel free to contact me at the MI-
CASHE ofﬁce at (517) 335-1802.

Sincerely,

Peggy LaFleur
MI-CASHE Evaluation Consultant

173

DATE

ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS

About three weeks ago we wrote to you seeking your results of your scholarship
search using the MI-CASHE program. As of today, we have not received your
completed questionnaire.

To aid us in gathering this information, we have enclosed the following
questionnaire for you to complete and return to use in the self-addressed, postage
paid envelope. We would be most appreciative of your time and effort in assisting
us to make the MI-CASHE program more effective for those who use it.

As mentioned in our last letter, participation is voluntary. You indicate your
agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire.
Participants may refuse to answer certain questions or may discontinue
participation at any time. Please return the questionnaire as soon as possible.

You may be assured of complete conﬁdentiality. The questionnaire has an
identiﬁcation number for mailing purposes only. This is so we can check your
name off the mailing list when your questionnaire is returned. All of the
information we receive will be combined so that no individual responses could be
identiﬁed.

Your response is important to the success of this study. If you would like a
summary of the results, please print your name and address on the back of the
return envelope (NOT on the questionnaire). The results should be available in
late Spring 1995.

If you have any questions please contact me at MI-CASHE (517) 335-1802. Thank
you for your participation.

Sincerely,

Peggy LaFleur
MI-CASHE Evaluation Consultant

 

174

‘ THE MI-CASHE PROGRAM '

MI-CASHE is an information service. It is a computerized system for locating sources of scholarships, grants.
internships, fellowships, work Study and a variety of loan programs. MI-CASHE service provides individual
listings of programs from private sponsors according to student characteristics. e.g., academic standing. enrollment
plans, prospeCtive colleges. major areas of study, career goals. etc. The user is responsible for contacting the
sponsors and applying for the speciﬁc awards. Nil-CASHE does not guarantee a certain number of matches nor
does it award any of the funds. The purpose of MI-CASHE is to help the user save time in locating potential
sources of aid.

 

You have been randomly chosen from among the users of MI-CASHE. Your responses to this questionnaire
are very important in determining the effectiveness of Nil-CASHE. Your assistance will help us to improve the
product and our services to the public.

DIRECTIONS; Select the most appropriate choice (or choices) from the alternatives given by circling the number
to the right of the response category. Please write in the Space provided for those questions
where written information is required.
_

1. How did you hear about the MI-CASHE program? (Please circle the number to the right. Circle as many
responses that apply.)

Attended a ﬁnancial aid night

 

Read in newspaper or other media
From a friend who used it

From a high school counselor

 

 

 

While in college when inquiring about financial aid
At a public library
At an adult education center

 

 

 

Using employer education assistance (i.e.. a union or other source)

 

h-lI-OHI-lo-ee-eu-ou-el-I

Other source (please specify)

 

 

2. Have you ever used any other computerized financial aid Iocator system?
YES 1
NO 5
(If ”YES") Which ones?

 

 

3. Did you ﬁnd the Nil-CASHE instructions underStandable? (Circle only one.)

Not at all understandable
Somewhat understandable

 

 

Reasonably understandable __
Extremely understandable ___

#035)"

175

4. If you called the MI-CASI-IE ofﬁce. how helpful was the stall? (Circle only one.)
Not at all helpful
Somewhat helpful
Helpful
Very helpful
I did not call the MI-CASHE ofﬁce.

 

 

 

 

O-huNH'

 

5. How satisﬁed were you with the results of the search report? (Circle only one.)
Very dissatisﬁed
Somewhat dissatisﬁed
Neither satisﬁed nor dissatisﬁed

 

 

 

Somewhat satisﬁed

 

MbWNF‘

Very satisﬁed

 

6. Did you contact any sponsoring agencies to apply for speciﬁc scholarships, grants, etc.?
YES ‘ _ 1

L» (If 'YES') How many did you contact?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO ' 5
L> (If 'NO") Why not? (Circle as many responses as apply. Then go to question #12
on Page 3-) .
The match list did not apply to my Situation. 1
The deadline dates had passed. 1
I decided not to go on to school. 1
I lost the match list. 1
I forgot to. 1
Ididn’tthinltitwasworth mytime. 1
I did not need the ﬁnancial aid. 1
W
7. About how much time did you Spend on contacting sponsors? (Circle only one.)
Two hours or less 1
More than two hours but less than ﬁve 2
Five to ten hours 3
More than ten hours 4

 

8. If you did contact any Sponsoring agency(cies):

How many sponsors did you contact?

 

Of those you contacted, how many responses did you receive?

 

Comments 0

176

9. To how many sponsoring agencies did you reutr'n applications? (If "NONE", put zero.)

How many did you return?

 

(If zero) Why didn’t you return any applications?

 

 

10. If you did apply to any Sponsoring agency (ies). did any of them require an application fee?

YES
NO FEES REQUIRED

 

 

(If 'YES") How many sponsoring agencies required a fee? '
How much was the lowest fee? 8

How much was the highest fee? 3

11. If you did complete the applications from sponsoring agencies, were you awarded funds?
YES

 

NO

 

(If you were awarded funds) How many awards did you receive?
What was the total amount of the awards? S

 

12. Would you use Nil-CASHE again?
YES

 

NO

 

13. How satisﬁed were you in using Nil-CASHE? (Circle only one.)
Very dissatisﬁed

 

Somewhat dissatisﬁed

 

Neither satisﬁed nor dissatisﬁed

 

Somewhat satisﬁed

 

Very satisﬁed

 

Comments

uhMN

 

14. Would you recommend MI-CASHE to someone else?
YES

 

NO

 

Comments

 

15. Are you attending college during the 1994-95 school year?
YES, Full time

 

YES, Part time

 

NO

 

177

16. Were you enrolled in college when you initially applied to Nil-CASHE?

 

 

YES, Full time 1
YES, Part time 2
NO 5

 

17. How do you plan to pay for your college educational costs? (e.g., tuition, room, board, etc.)
Indicate the approximate percentage of your total college costs for the ﬁrst academic year
contributed by each of the following sources.

Family funds %
Personal funds
Scholarship(s)
Grant(s)
Loan(s)
Internship
Fellowship
Work-Study
Non work-study job (off campus)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employer-Sponsored funds
Other (please specify)
Have decided not to attend now.

 

 

.lllllllllll

18. Which of the following best describes the area where you live - rurallfarm, small city/town, urban

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or suburban?
Rural/farm 1
Small city/town 2
Suburban 3
Urban 4
19. At the time you graduated from high school, which description below best describes the
composition of the household where you resided?
With one parent - mOLher 1
With one parent - father 2
With both parents -- mother and father 3
With two parents - mother and stepfather or father and stepmother 4
Other (Specify) 0

 

20. If you live with one or both parents. list their occupation (title or brief description).

Mother

Father

Legal guardian

Other (specify)
—

-> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.
Please return the completed questionnaire in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope.

 

 

 

 

178

[VII-CASHE Questionnaire - Cements
Q. 1 . How did you hear about the MI-CASHE program?

Father

Parent

My coordinator

College tour that stated that MI-CASHE could be part of the financial aid
package.

A talent search program.

A college student Of my mom's.

My stepfather told me about it.

From a friend's mother who knew about it.

A co-worker of my mother's who was applying.

A friend who heard about it.

Word of mouth

High school office

Announcement in high school

Mother got information from somewhere

Mother is a librarian

My father is Director of Admissions & Financial Aid at Schoolcraft College .
Scholarship book

From my mother who is a counselor .

The information was sent to me through the mail.

Mother's friend

College speaker

College newsletter

Congressman that was in office at that time .

Parent

University of Michigan Financial Aid office

MTP Program Manufacturing Technology Partnership

Radio station

My father who works for the State of Michigan

Mother

Bank

My dad

A financial aid booklet from a college night

Asked information from financial aid office. Was inquiring about other source .
Parents

I called a college. The financial aid director told me about MI—CASHE.
Call other places for scholarships.

Called Michigan Department of Education

Q .2. Have you ever used any other computerized financial aid Iocator system?

Pepsi search

MMB Service

I don't remember exactly, American Legion, Rosa Parks, others.
Federal Financial Aid

Two: C.A.P. and ('2?!

179

A talent search program

S.A.R. - Student Aid Reports

Yes, can't remember name

Yes, can't recall at this particular time

Data Processing Center (New Jersey), Financial Resource Service (California),
and College Financial Planning Service (Washington, DC)

Western Michigan

DECO

WMU-CASHE

Yes, I can't remember the name. Big package in a blue folder.

Yes, private company in Texas

Yes, Can't remember exactly, it was an educational assoc. through my high
school.

Vector Group , Ltd.

Yes , I do not remember the name of the Iocator .

Yes, Nestle.

8101 .

Yes, College Fund Finder

Yes , unable to recall

Yes , Scholarship Search

Yes, U of M Office of Financial Aid, Office of Undergraduate Admissions, Ofﬁce
of Academic and Multicultural Initiatives and Comprehensive Studies Program
Scholarship List.

Yes, don't remember.

Yes, Dollars for Scholars

Not sure of name, some company in Kalamazoo

The computer program at my high school - I don't know what it was called.
American Educational Assistance Council, Burbank, California

Pepsi Tuition Funding

0.8. If you did contact any sponsoring agency(ies): comments

Some deadlines were wrong on our information . Some had already passed by the
time we got the list.

Awards were ones already offered through state and school financial resources.
many dates were past when we got the MI-CASHE material arrived.

The MI-CASI-IE materials arrived after many deadlines were past. We ordered the
MI-CASHE as soon as it was announced.

They were unresponsive .

If I sent SASS (?)(#150)

Many addresses weren't valid.

I didn't receive any responses!

Did not match my situation .

In some way or other didn't qualify.

Most I had either heard from already or were passed, two of them were due after I
received the list so I couldn't possibly send for an application.

I did not receive any money but will give it one more try .

Did not qualify.

Several did not respond and several also had deadline dates which passed.

Most were for minorities .

180

Between the time of agency response and application deadline, the time to
complete the application was very limited/tight.

I did not receive any financial aid from them at the time.

Didn't know where to look for responses.

Several had already expired.

Most sponsors required financial need, for which I did not qualify.

This list was pg helpful!

Several contact letters were returned listing no such address or organization .
Most of numbers and information were outdated .

Many scholarships did not apply or by the time I got MI-CASHE, sent out letters
and received a response it was past the deadline.

N o qualifications fit me .

Perhaps I'm not qualify. (qualified)

Available through counseling Office

Some sources have been canceled

I all me I did not meet the dead-line.

It seemed the deadline had passed on everything.

The paper or application didn't reach before the deadline

Its only been a short time since contact.

I am in the difficult position of my parents making too much to qualify for aid but
not enough (with 12 children and a business) to pay for my ed. with cash. I was
in the top ten of class, but not high enough for academic scholarships.

Did not qualify after getting response from sponsor.

They couldn't help me because I wasn't a member or didn't know a member.
Sponsor claims received no responses.

Missed deadlines for most.

No one wanted to give me aid.

Deadlines passed, did not apply to me, etc.

Many agencies were not up to date; they were listed on the MI-CASHE, but did
not exist anymore.

Their requirements do not match my situation .

Details of scholarship were not clear prior to calling sponsors, therefore I was _n_ot
qualified for any of the programs I called upon discussion with them.

Most of the scholarships were due Dec or by Jan and I received it (MI-CASHE)
late. Also my grade average was low for most scholarships.

I had already contacted most Of the agencies before I received information so MI-
CASHE was not very helpful to me, but I may try the program again one day.
They were not very helpful.

Very few responded.

(1 response received) that is all so far

Some no longer exist

The responses were prompt and very understanding.

Most had expired or my son wasn't qualified.

I didn't qualify for any, or I got the information in after their deadline period.
Always talked to (a) computer, never a person

Some came back return to sender. I didn't receive any scholarships through the
agencies.

Most of the sponsors require a high grade average plus information . I could not
get in time to apply. (For example, since I'm Indian, a reservation number. This
took me 8 mon. to get for a $200 grant that I was not awarded anyway.)

181

Most of the deadlines for application had already passed.
Most matches were either expired or only had a week to apply.

0.9. If zero, why didn't you return any applications?

Awards not applicable or already had them.

Deadlines were past before the MI-CASHE material arrived although we ordered it
as soon as it was announced.

Did not qualify.

Already knew about scholarships and had applied.

I sent to them for info. They said it was too late so I never sent anything back
in .

They didn't apply to my major or were outdated.

Deadlines had passed.

Don't really know

Did not match my situation

No application received or required, just documents

Didn't apply to situation

No scholarships applied

Fees were required

Contacted many by phone, letters sent didn't receive one

The agendas on my list wanted responses from either high school seniors or
college freshmen. Because I had been out of school for a year to have a baby, I
did not qualify .

I didn't receive any

Ask for money or did not receive any

Zero, because I was not able to get any because none of the sponsoring agendas
applied to me.

Deadlines passed

Past deadline

Too many limitations - didn't think we would qualify I had a scholarship.
Deadline passed. Miner detail - disqualify

When the application came back it was too late

The applications did not apply to me.

Your list didn't give me anything I needed, or deadlines passed.

Too expensive, and too competitive = not promising

Deadline date was past or not enough time to gather data needed before deadline .
(and) Program generally started too late for 1994 graduating seniors.

None received due to outdated information provided by MI—CASHE

Not applicable

Either they weren't appropriate, i.e. , NAACP for a white male or they required
elaborate screening for a small stipend.

DO not meet their criteria

Deadline was over

I haven't got any yet

Because I did not want to belong to their organizations or I did not have the time
to because I study most of my extra time.

Past deadline dates

It was past the deadlines, didn't apply to me

Information was received too late

182

Most are sending applications

Did not qualify

Deadline passed

They couldn't help me for various reasons

Forgot (to apply)

Just never did

Too late

None gave me any indication _ to return

Past due date

Because one I was already applied to and other didn't seen (send) me a app. (an
application)

Deadline passed

Match list did not apply to my situation

Criteria/ requirement conﬂict

I only received 4 responses and they stated "unable to assist at this time"
There were none I received through MI-CASHE

Match list did not apply for me

Never received any

Because they are all asking for a fee, and also I didn't need

Passed deadlines

I didn't return any because I found out about MI-CASI-IE too late and by then the
deadlines were almost up .

No time

Not eligible

I did not receive any

Not enough information given to me by phone

NO applications were mailed

Did not have enough time and did not need extra financial aid at the time
Because I lost interest through the whole mass process - plus I had to write back
to most of them just for an application .

Deadlines passed/didn't qualify

The ones that I qualified for the deadline was past.

I wrote each agency requesting an application. However, I received the
applications after the deadline date. I did allow 6 - 12 weeks before the deadline
date.

I found that I was not eligible for their scholarships in 2 cases.

Even out of the few that I chose to contact, none of them applied to me.

I didn't send any information about any because did not match my need.

0. 13. How satisfied were you in using MI-CASl-IE?

Your service was excellent but the sponsors were not .

Nothing really applied

My information was too late to receive quite a few of the scholarships .

Changed my major. I would like to use MI-CASHE again for the 1995-96 school
year .

Dates of deadline for applications incomplete - no year or date due

I had more leads through my own research . Also, most scholarships had changed
I no longer qualified . Something y_o_u_ did not know but should have!

None of the scholarships applied to me.

 

183

I found that the F_re_e_P_r§ listed the same scholarship that MI-CASHE listed at no
cost to me.

Many of the scholarships did not apply to me even when I answered the MI-CASHE
questions correctly.

Would have been satisfied if dates weren't expired and sponsoring agencies
applied to me.

This time I'm going to use MI-CASHE for sure and hopefuny receive some
scholarships or grant rewards .

I did not receive any help from MI-CASHE

I would like more info so I know when to apply again.

I received no financial awards . It was a waste of valuable time and money! !

Had requested only current application dates - most referrals were already past
application deadlines .

Like I stated before, most of the sponsors required financial need .

I need the help - but this was a big waste of funds! I'd like to, need to - but
won't because the answers were useless .

I was sent information that didn't apply.

It was a waste of time and money .

No hurt in trying again, but probably wouldn't help

Help me so I can get reward please!

In the question or match need to be more defined .

Wanted the "left—handed" scholarship - no name given back .

It didn't apply to me

Good ideas but no 5 came my way

May use it later

I never received a response for any ﬁnancial funding.

Because it helps you find agencies for you.

You didn't send information on scholarships I circled.

I filled out the paperwork and did not qualify for any grants.

I did not need to use and I'll not use at all because I have scholarship for 4 years
from college.

Information arrived too late to be useful.

I wasted my time using MI-CASHE

Found it easy to use but applied too late

Although the scholarships listed didn't apply to my situation or they just weren't
scholarships I could use, there was a variety or possible sources and I was
thankful for so many options.

We were late to MI-CASHE

I'm a lazy person

Many companies did not apply to my area of concentration

Which (wish?) there was more scholarships for auto diesel avail(able) .

None of the above. Does not apply.

I'm going to school in Texas - I don't think MI-CASHE will help me.

It was very helpful to find the money available for me.

I found same or better info at Public Library. There must be other sources for
aid?

Either the scholarships didn’t apply or the deadline had already passed.

184

Q. 14. Would you recommend MI-CASHE to someone else?

No. I think you could do as well on your own at the library.

Came too late - is it still in existence? Didn't hear anything about it this year.
Took too long to receive the materials.

I_f_ they were applying to MI schools

Maybe they have more specific needs

Your program did not have information for a fine arts major. Another problem is
you are not considered for many scholarships if you are not in the top of your
class. Most of your information did not match our need . Some had the wrong info
and some scholarships were not being offered this year. I would recommend any
of these services because they are a good starting point.

Waste of time and money

Unless MI-CASHE made info more accurate

Waste of s!

If low-income

It might benefit them somehow

Cheapest one I used

Only if the deadline problem was worked out .

With improvements to the program

I'm a 3.89 GPA student and could not get help

MI-CASHE did not help me in a_ny way - instead of receiving money, I gave it to a
useless program.

Its a waste of money. It didn't help me since dates were expired and sponsors
didn't apply to me. Also I asked for no expired dates and got them anyway.

It didn't seem to help me!!

I really can't comment on that because I didn't go any further than looking at the
deadlines (which had passed)

It would not hurt for anyone to try.

But apply ASAP or you will miss deadlines

Depends on their need

They need not waste their time!

Your information was wrong. The one sponsor (approx. 10 different
scholarships) was listed with a winter '94 deadline that was actually a mid-fall '93
deadline. A lot of wasted time and effort!

Its a great source if you can fit the requirements .

It was confusing.

(No) I've recommended others! ,

To young people without an earned degree, I would recommend it.

(No) due to false information data systems and useless information .

(Yes) Especially if they have unusual situations.

(Yes) If it improved a little.

(Yes) if they are need base

I really can't say until I am successful with the program.

(Yes) Have a number of times.

(Yes) It might turn out better next time

It was extremely helpful

(No) Because they want someone to join their organizations when you are as poor
as us students you do not have time or the money to participate in these
organizations.

It might help them

If I received adequate information

185

For those who qualify

Maybe

Waste of time and money

Good ideas but no $ came my way

No, until I receive financial funding first.

(No) A lot of work I hope - for nothing.

I did recommend it to many people.

Library more helpful for my case.

But people should know Juniors need this form 11531; Seniors .

Yes if they have not already looked for scholarships.

I received four scholarships doing my own research. Hopefuny your better in
your second year. (your refers to MI-CASHE)

(Yes) It could be helpful to someone else.

Nothing applied to my situation .

It helped a lot.

Maybe

Unless someone is desperate for funds, its not worth all the time, money and
hassle.

Because I didn't receive any accurate info. ,

They would need to send for information vegy early. Took a vegy long time to
receive information .

I think this should be offered FREE in the public schools for students in their
senior year. (Sept. or Oct. of Senior Year)

Some of the scholarship deadlines had already passed by the time I received the
information .

(Yes) Perhaps they wouldn't have spent the hours in the library I did.

(Yes) Send information before deadlines.

Miscellaneous Comments (written at end or in margins; not attached directly to
any question)

G . attends college in Ohio so a lot of MI-CASHE didn't apply. Also deadline dates
had passed by the time we received information. Our 2nd son will use it more.

Some addresses were inaccurate. Deadline dates had passed. Not indicated on
Mil-CASHE - only when applications arrived.

I think my money should be refunded. I have never been so dissatisﬁed in my
whole entire life.

I'm white. I was told to apply for the UNCF (United Negro College Fund) to find
funding! Wake up! Some help!

Why do you ask almost one year later. I can't remember all these things. This
was not helpful. 1) The government grants - I did not need your help with. 2)
The race was sometimes wrong. 3) There was only one that ﬁt.

We used your program for two sons. Would like a refund as it was not at all
helpful.

Because of parents occupation I didn't or couldn't receive any help.

 

APPENDIX E

COVER LETTER FOR TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS AND INTERVIEW
PROTOCOLS: FINANCIAL AID OFFICERS. HIGH SCHOOL
GUIDANCE COUNSELORS. AND PARENTS

186

DATE

NAME
ADDRESS
ADDRESS

I Dear

 

MI—CASHE, Michigan - College Aid Sources for Higher Education, began in
November 1993. Now that the program has been Operational for one year, the MI-CASHE
ofﬁce is undertaking an evaluation of the program. Evaluating the effectiveness of MI-
CASHE includes contacting students and parents who have used it, as well as high school
counselors and college ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcers who assisted students in using MI-CASHE. This
letter is sent to introduce you to the evaluation process.

Within approximately seven (7) days I will be contacting you by telephone to ask you
to participate in the evaluation study. I would like to schedule a time to conduct a telephone
interview to discuss your general perceptions of MI-CASHE as a supplemental source of
financial aid information. The interview will take approximately ﬁfteen (15) minutes. Your
input is needed and would be greatly appreciated.

Your participation in the evaluation study is voluntary. All information gathered for
the study will be kept conﬁdential. For the purposes of this study, all responses will be
compiled so that no individual responses will be identiﬁable. Only I, as evaluation consultant,
will have access to the identiﬁcation numbers and individual responses. Capies of the
completed study are expected to be available in late spring of 1995. Please note that I will
also use the data collected as part of my research for a doctoral degree at Michigan State
University.

If you have any questions regarding the evaluation study, I will be happy to answer
them when I contact you, or feel free to contact me at the M-CASI—IE ofﬁce at (517) 335-
1802.

Sincerely,

Peggy LaFleur
MI-CASHE Evaluation Consultant

187

Individual Interview Protocol (telephone survey)
Michigan Postsecondary Education Financial Aid Officers
Ml-CASHE: Michigan - College Aid Sources for Higher Education

My name is Peggy LaFleur. I am a graduate student at Michigan State University and I
am also working as a coordinator of the Ml-CASHE program (Michigan - College Aid Sources for
Higher Education). Approximately one week ago you should have received a letter informing
you that I would be contacting you to request your participation in an evaluation study of the MI-
CASHE program. Do you recall receiving such a letter? (If no, explain the study and ﬁnd out if
they are willing to participate in the interview now, or reschedule for a time suitable to their
schedule, but soon. Offer to send a copy of the introductory letter.) (If yes,...) Is this a suitable
time for an interview or is there another time that would suit your schedule better? (Make a
telephone appointment for the very near future.)

Purpose of the study: The purpose of my study focuses on the costs and beneﬁts of a
computerized search service. To accomplish this, I would like to discuss your perceptions of the
MLCASHE program. As a result of this study, I hope to gain insights into the larger issues
affecting access to postsecondary education including higher education policy and use of public
funds.

Participation in the study is voluntary. Your agreement to participate in the interview is
your consent for me to use the information for the results of my study. You may refuse to
answer questions or stop the interview at any time. All information will be kept confidential.
No one other than I will have direct access to your responses. also, all responses will be
compiled in aggregate form so no one will be able to select out any individual’s responses. The
interview will take about 20 minutes.

Do you have any questions before we start? (Begin the interview.)

1. To get started, I'd like us to talk about MI-CASHE in general. As we know from reading
the description, MI-CASHE is a Iocator service that assists students in their searching for
alternative sources to fund their college education. Would you describe your initial
impressions of Ml-CASHE?

2. Were you aware of the existence of other computerized ﬁnancial aid Iocator systems such
as this one? If so, how did you become aware of it/them? Are you familiar with any
other search services? If yes, could compare MI-CASHE to another service? (If no, go
on.)

3. One part of evaluating Ml-CASHE as a product and as a service involves determining
whether or not it is effective. Effectiveness can be viewed in different ways.
1) It is effective if it increases people's awareness of searching for funds beyond the
traditional state and federal ﬁnancial aid programs.
2) It is effective if it increases people’s knowledge of ﬁnancial aid, the process and the
system.
3) It is effective if people are actually awarded funds.

Fl“ 3...... Sir-

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

188

Based on the descriptions of effectiveness that I just stated, to what extent do you
consider MI-CASHE effective? If so, could you describe your perceptions of its
effectiveness in terms of the descriptions I gave you?

In your view, to what extent could a program like, Ml-CASHE, increase access to college?

In your view, to what extent could a program like, Ml-CASHE, increase equity of funding
distribution?

In your view, to what extent could a program like MI-CASHE have any effect on a
student’s choice of institutions?
Why or why not?

Now let's talk about student persistence. I will deﬁne persistence in two ways. 1)
persistence is retention from year to year.
2) persistence is retention through degree completion.

In your view, to what extent do you think Ml-CASI-IE could encourage student
persistence? Why or why not?

Would you be inclined to recommend Ml—CASHE to some students to use but not others?
If you were going to make a distinction between them, what criteria would you use?

If you know of students who have used this program, did they share their reactions to the
program with you? If so, do you recall their comments? Consider their level of
satisfaction with user friendliness, the process, the search report results, etc.

From your perspective, as a financial aid officer, do you think MI-CASHE is worthwhile?
If so, how? If not, why not?

Is it worth someone’s time to complete the application process? Why or why not?

Have you seen a search report? (Student’s or a sample copy?)
If yes, do you think there are enough sources listed?
If yes, do you think there are enough useable sources?

Do you think the $15 processing fee is too high, adequate, low for the type of service it
offers and the time it takes to complete the application process? Why or why not?

Does your ﬁnancial aid ofﬁce have a particular policy or philosophy about
programs such as MI-CASHE, programs that are outside the realm of
traditional state and federal ﬁnancial aid programs?

189

15. From your view, do you think this is the most worthwhile expenditure for the state's
ﬁnancial aid funds? Would you prefer to see the money used in a different way? If so,
how?

A few background questions:

Approximately what percentage of students at your institution receive some type of
financial aid funding? (include both full and part time students)

Approximately what percentage of the students are receiving need based aid?

How long have you worked as a college/university ﬁnancial aid ofﬁcer?

What is your position/title?

 

 

190

Individual Interview Protocol (telephone survey)
MI-CASHE: Michigan - College Aid Sources for Higher Education

Michigan High School Guidance Counselors

My name is Peggy LaFleur. I am a graduate student at Michigan State University and I

am also working as a coordinator of the Ml-CASHE program. Are you familiar with the MI-
CASHE program? (If not, explain. If yes, go on.) Approximately one week ago you should have
received a letter informing you that I would be contacting you to request your participation in an
evaluation study of the MI-CASHE program. Do you recall receiving that introductory letter? (If
no, explain the study and find out if they are willing to participate now or at a later date. Offer
to send a copy of the first mailing.) (If yes,..) is this a suitable time for an interview or is there
another time that would suit you schedule better? (Make a telephone appointment if necessary.)

Purpose of the study: The purpose of the study is to focus on the costs and benefits of a
computerized search service. To accomplish this, I would like to discuss your perceptions of the
MI-CASHE program. Your perceptions will help us improve the MI-CASHE product and service,
and consider how Ml-CASHE impacts on student financial aid.

Participation in the interview is voluntary. Your participation in the study is your
consent. You may refuse to answer questions or stop the interview at any time. All information
will be kept confidential. No one other than I will have direct access to your responses. Also,
all responses will be compiled in aggregate form so no one will be able to select out any
individual’s responses. The interview will take about 20 minutes.

Do you have any questions before we start?
1. Are you aware of computerized financial aid Iocator systems such as MI-CASHE? Would
you tell me what you know about them or what your experience has been?

2. Would you tell me about your initial reactions to the MI-CASHE program?
Have your impressions changed any? If so, how? or why?

3. Let’s talk about the potential effectiveness of a program such as this. What would this
program have to provide in order for you to consider it to be effective?

4. In your view, to what extent could a program such as MI-CASHE could effectively
increase access to postsecondary education opportunities? Why or why not? How?

5. In your view, to what extent could a program such as MI-CASHE could promote a more
equitable distribution of scholarship dollars? Why or why not? How?

6. In your view, to what extent could a program such as Ml-CASHE have any effect on a
student’s choice of college/university to attend? Why or why not? How?

7. Do you think financial aid programs encourage persistence? (Persistence is
defined as retention from year to year and as degree completion). Please explain why or
why not.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

191

Why might you encourage a student to use a program such as MI-CASHE? Why might
you discourage a student from using one?

In your view, how useful is Ml-CASHE in comparison to other financial aid search tools?
If you know of students who have used this program, did they share their reactions to
the program with you? (Consider their level of satisfaction as to user friendliness, the
process, the search report results, etc.)

Have any parents asked your opinion on using computerized programs such as MI-
CASHE? If so, what is your typical response?

Do you think it is worth the student’s time to complete the Ml-CASHE application
process? Why or why not?

Do you think the $15 processing fee is high, adequate, low? Why or why not?

Do you think that offering the MI-CASHE program is the most worthwhile expenditure of
state’s financial aid funds? Would you prefer to see the money used in a different way?

Wrap up. Regarding MI-CASHE and/or computerized Iocator systems in general, is there
anything you would like to add to the discussion?

Background questions

16.

17.

18.

Approximately what percentage of your time do you spend counseling
students regarding financial aid?

Approximately what percentage of your time do you spend counseling
students regarding college choice?

How long have you been a high school guidance counselor?

192

Interview Protocol for Parents’ (telephone)
MI-CASHE

I want to ask you some questions regarding the MI-CASHE scholarship search service that
your student participated in. Your participation is voluntary. All of the information is strictly
confidential. All of the information will be combined so no individual responses will be
recognizable. You may refuse to answer questions or stop the interview at any time. The
interview will take about 15 minutes. Are you willing to participate in this interview?

After each question I am going to read to you a list of possible answers. Please say yes
or no to each answer that best describes your perceptions of MI—CASHE. Feel free to ask me to
repeat any questions that are not clear. Do you have any questions before we start?

 

 

I. How did you become aware of MI-CASHE?
your student heard about it at school ................................... I
read in newspaper or other media ..................................... I
from a friend who used it ........................................... I
from a high school counselor ......................................... I
attended a financial aid presentation .................................... l
at a public library ................................................. I
at an adult education center .......................................... I
using employer assistance ........................................... 1
other source (please specify) ......................................... l

2. Have you used any other computerized financial aid Iocator system?
yes ........................................................... I
no ............................................................ S

If yes, which ones?

 

3. Who completed the Ml-CASHE application form?

parent ......................................................... 1
student ........................................................ 2
student and parent together .......................................... 3
student and school counselor ......................................... 4
other .......................................................... 0
comments

 

 

4. Did you find the MI-CASHE instructions understandable?

If not, why
not?

 

193

 

 

If you called the MI-CASHE office, was the staff helpful?

very helpful ..................................................... I
helpful ......................................................... 2
somewhat helpful ................................................. 3
not at all helpful .................................................. 4
I did not call the office ............................................. 5
comments-

 

 

Were you satisfied with the results of the search report?

very satisfied .................................................... l
somewhat satisfied ................................................ 2
neither satisﬁed nor dissatisfied .................. ' ..................... 3
somewhat dissatisfied .............................................. 4
very dissatisfied .................................................. 5
comments

 

 

Did you contact the sponsoring agency to request specific scholarship applications?

If not, why
not?

 

If contact was made with the sponsoring agency, were applications or any response
received from them?

yes ........................................................... I
no ............................................................ 5
comments

 

 

Did your student follow through with the application process?

no ............................................................ 5
If not, would you explain why
not?

 

 

194

Did your student receive any awards?

If yes, how many?
If yes, total amount?
no ............................................................ 5
comments

 

 

 

 

Would you use MI-CASHE again?

If not, why not?

 

 

Would you recommend MI-CASHE to someone else?

If not, why
not?

 

 

Did you think the $15.00 processing fee was:

too high in price .................................................. I
about right ...................................................... 2
too low in price? ................................................. 3
comments

 

 

In addition to the $15 fee, did you incur any other costs pertaining to your search
process?

 

yes ........................................................... 1
If yes, about how much?

no ............................................................ 5

comments

 

 

About how much time have you invested in seeking out sources of ﬁnancial aid?

less than ﬁve hours ................................................ 1
more than ﬁve hours ............................................... 2
more than ten hours ............................................... 3
twenty hours or more .............................................. 4

other .......................................................... 5

195

comments

 

16. Have you used any other means to seek financial aid sources?

yes, ........................................................... 1
If yes, what were

they?

 

 

If not, why not?

 

 

17. Based on the results of your student’s match list, do you think it was worth your time to

fill out?

yes, it was worth my time ........................................... 1
it was somewhat worth my time ....................................... 2
it was not worth my time ............................................ 3
it was not at all worth my time ........................................ 4
comments

 

 

18. Do you think it was worth your time and costs incurred to participate in the MI-CASHE
search service?

yes, it was worth my time and money ................................... 1
it was somewhat worth my time and money .............................. 2
it was not worth my time and money ................................... 3
it was not at all worth my time and money ............................... 4
comments

 

 

Background Information

19. What is your primary relationship to the student?

mother ..................................................... . . . . 1
father .......................................................... 2
legal guardian .................................................... 3
informally responsible .............................................. 4
relative (please specify) ............................................. 5

other..... ..................................................... O

 

 

 

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

196

What is your age range? '

 

less than 25 years old .............................................. 1
25 to 35 years old ................................................ 2
36 to 45 years old ................................................ 3
46 to 55 years old ................................................ 4
56 to 65 years old ................................................ 5
66 or older ...................................................... 6
What is your approximate household income?

under 25,000 yearly ............................................... 1
between $25,000 and $35,000 ....................................... 2
over $35,000 up to $45,000 ......................................... 3
over $45,000 up to $55,000 ......................................... 4
over $55,000 up to $65,000 ......................................... 5
over $65,000 up to $75,000 ......................................... 6
over $75,000 up to $85,000 ......................................... 7
over $85,000 up to $95,000 ......................................... 8
over $95,000 up to $105,000 ........................................ 9
over $105,000 .................................................. 10
How many family members are supported on the approximate household income?

one to three ..................................................... 1
four to six ...................................................... 2
seven to nine .................................................... 3
ten or more ..................................................... 4
other .......................................................... 0
How would you describe your household? Is it...

one parent - mother ............................................... 1
one parent - father ................................................ 2
both - mother and father ............................................ 3
other specify .................................................... 0
What is the highest educational level you have completed?

high school ..................................................... 1
certificate or technical degree ......................................... 2
associate ....................................................... 3
bachelor ....................................................... 4
masters ........................................................ 5
specialist ....................................................... 6
doctorate ....................................................... 7
other .......................................................... 0

 

 

25.

26.

27.

28.

197

How many of the student’s immediate family members have attended college?
(community or four-year college)

none .......................................................... 1
one to three ..................................................... 2
four to six ...................................................... 3
seven to nine .................................................... 4
ten or more ..................................................... 5

Referring to question 25, of those who attended college, how many completed a degree?

none .......................................................... 1
one to three ..................................................... 2
four to six ...................................................... 3
seven to nine .................................................... 4
ten or more ..................................................... 5

Which of the following best describes the area where you live?

rural/farm ....................................................... 1
small city/town ................................................... 2
urban .......................................................... 3
suburban ....................................................... 4

Please feel free to comment on any other aspect of the MI-CASHE search service that the
questions have not covered.

 

 

 

 

 

198

' Protocol: Follow up interview with students who ﬁlled out and returned the
questionnaire.

My name is Peggy LaFleur. I work with the MI-CASHE scholarship search
service that you applied to and I am also a graduate student at Michigan State
University. I am conducting this study for the Michigan Higher Education
Assistance Authority and to complete my degree at Michigan State University. Do
you recall recently ﬁlling out a questionnaire pertaining to your MI-CASHE search
results? (If yes, go on. If no, refresh their memory.) I would like to ask you a few
more questions about MI-CASHE. It will take about ten minutes. Do you have
some time right now? Or, is there another time when I can call you back?

Your participation is voluntary. Your agreement to participate in the
interview is your consent to let me write down what you say about MI-CASHE.
All the information is strictly conﬁdential. All the information will be combined so
no individual responses will be recognizable. You may refuse to answer any
questions or stOp the interview at any time. Are you willing to participate in this
interview? Do you have any questions before we begin the interview?

1. Why did you decide to apply to the MI-CASHE program?

2. Let’s talk about the application process. Could you tell me how you went
about the process; ﬁ'om ﬁlling out the application to as far as you went with
the entire process? (Did you contact scholarship sponsoring agencies?)

3. What other avenues of ﬁnancial aid have you checked into?

4. Did you apply for any scholarships besides those in your MI-CASHE search
results? If so, which ones? How did you ﬁnd out about them?

5. Did you talk with your high school counselor about ﬁnancial aid? If yes,
was she/he helpful/ In what ways?

6. If you did not talk with your counselor, why not? Did you talk with anyone
else? (outside of family members)

7. Did you consider paying for college on your own, without help from your
parents or family? Would you have considered it if your parents weren’t
able to help you? Would you have considered loans or working?

8. How important is it, to you, to go to college? Why do you want to go?

9. Do you think the reasons you just listed will keep you in college until you
complete your degree? Why or why not?

10. Are you attending college now?

 

199

'11. Are you attending the college you most wanted to attend? Was it your ﬁrst
choice? If not, why not? Please explain.

12. Referring to question 11, if it was your ﬁrst choice college, are you satisﬁed
being at that college? Why or why not?

13. Do you think the cost of college is too high, about right, or too low? Please
explain why you think that.

14. Do you have any additional comments or any questions?

Thank you for your participation.

 

200

Interview Protocol for Student Financial Assistance Personnel:
1) Executive Director, Student Financial Assistance
2) Program Director, Support Services Programs

(These two interviews will be conducted in person. The interviews will not be
taped. No introductions are necessary as the researcher and the interviewees are already
acquainted through working for the Office of Student Financial Assistance.)

Your participation is voluntary. Your agreement to participate in the interview is
your consent to let me record, in writing, the information we discuss. All the
information is strictly confidential. All the information will be combined so no
individual responses will be recognizable. You may refuse to answer questions or stop
the interview at any time. Are you willing to participate in the interview? Do you have
any questions before we begin?

1. Let’s begin by reviewing the MI-CASHE program. Why did you decide to offer
MI-CASHE initially?

2. What are your general impressions of how it is perceived by college and
university financial aid officers?
By high school counselors?
By parents and students who use it?
By the general public? (IF different from parents and students.)

3. Do you think the $15 processing fee is too high, adequate, or too low? Would
you explain your answer?

4. Have you considered raising the processing fee? If yes, to what price? Why?

5. What, do you believe, are the costs and benefits of offering MI-CASHE to
residents of Michigan? Why do you believe this?

6. To what extent do you believe it is worthwhile for the Office of Student Financial
Assistance to offer MI-CASH E?

7. Would you recommend evaluating Ml-CASHE on a regular periodic basis? Why
or why not?

8. Do you think that funding the MI-CASHE program is an appropriate, beneficial
and effective way for the state of Michigan to support access to higher education?

9. Are there other uses of state monies allocated to support access to higher
education that you believe would be more beneficial and effective?

10. Do you have any questions or ﬁnal comments?

APPENDIX F

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION OF MI-CASHE: MICHIGAN-COLLEGE AID
SOURCES FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

SUPPORTIVE MEMORANDA REGARDING PILOT STUDY, RATIONALE FOR
OPERATING Ml-CASHE AND PROPOSED BOILERPLATE AMENDMENT,
Ml-CASHE FEE STRUCTURE. AND JUSTIFICATION FOR
SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT

 

201

MI-CASHE: Michigan - College Aid Sources for Higher Education
Program Description

The Michigan Higher Education Student Loan Authority (MHESLA) together with the
Michigan Higher Education Assistance Authority (MHEAA) introduced a comprehensive
ﬁnancial assistance information program as a service for Michigan students on November 11,
I993. The Authorities acquired, on a lease basis, a database consisting of 14,000 resources
with over 150,000 individual awards sponsored by more than 4,100 public and private
organizations nationwide. The computerized system locates sources of scholarships, grants,
internships, fellowships, work study and a variety of loan programs for both undergraduate
and graduate students. The database, called CASHE (College Aid Sources for Higher
Education), is updated twice a year by its parent company, National College Services, Ltd.
(N SCL).

The Authorities promote this service under the trade name MI-CASHE; Michigan -
College Aid Sources for Higher Education. This trademark connotes a partnership between
the Michigan Authorities and NCSL. The MI-CASHE service provides individual listings of
programs from private sponsors according to student characteristics, eg., academic standing,
enrollment plans, prospective colleges, major areas of study, career goals, etc.

MI-CASHE applicants complete a one page form and submit it with a processing fee
of $15. Staff enter the student proﬁle information from the form into the MI-CASHE system.
The system conducts a matching process with the student’s characteristics and sponsoring
agencies’ qualifying criteria. The result of a search report, ie., a matched list of potential
sources of aid, is mailed to the applicant along with a description of how to read the report, a
sample form letter to use when contacting sponsors, and helpful suggestions to assist users’
quests for additive ﬁnancial aid sources.

The Authorities adopted MI-CASHE as an alternative to commercial outlets of which
many, unfortunately, mislead unsuspecting parents and students with outdated or irrelevant
information while charging exorbitant fees. The MI-CASHE $15 user fee is expected to
provide the necessary funds to cover Operating expenses allowing MI-CASHE to be a self-
supporting service.

202

MEMORANDUM AM; o 3 I993
MUCHHGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATUON

OFFICE OF STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

TO: Program Directors DATE: July 28, 1993

FROM: Antonio Floresﬂll/és
l'
SUBJECT: Free Pilot Study of Ml-CASHE System offered to staff

The MDEJMHEAA is pleased to announce the addition of a new service for students to be
launched in the fall of 1993. The OFSA/Support Services Programs will Offer a
comprehensive ﬁnancial aid resource system designed to assist students in searching for
scholarships and other ﬁnancial aid. The Michigan College Aid Sources for Higher Education
Program, “MI-CASHE.” contains unduplicated information on over 14,000 resources from over
4,100 sponsoring agencies leading to a resource distribution of over 200.000 awards, i.e.
scholarships, grants, fellowships. specialized loans. etc. This data is updated on a daily basis
at National College Services, Ltd., and validated, in total. annually. This national database
system has been endorsed by educational institutions as a credible system with professional
goals. (Additional detail about the database is attached.)

To gain experience with this new system, the SSP staff is running a pilot study before offering
it to the general public. THE STAFF IS ASKING FOR VOLUNTEERS WHO HAVE A
COLLEGE-BOUND SON OR DAUGHTER WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN FILUNG OUT
A Ml-CASHE APPLICATION FREE OF CHARGE AS A PARTICIPANT IN THE PILOT
STUDY. The SSP staff will maintain confidentiality and anonymity for all participants. Names
will be blocked out and a number will be assigned to each application output. The initial
information obtained in the application process is not financial data but, instead, a student
proﬁle.

Attached to this memo you will find a copy of the application and a code book to assist the
participant in ﬁlling out the form. As Program Director, we are asking you to have copies
made for any staff in your area who would like to take advantage Of this free search. Please
ask them to return the completed application form to the SSP Office by August 10, 1993. Any
questions are to be directed to the SSP ofﬁce. speciﬁcally, Walt Appel (3-7121) or Peggy
LaFleur (3-0457).

Thank you.

AFzsn

Attachments

c: Gary Hawks
H. Jack Nelson

'1‘

-_—'-'A ‘I..' .

 

203

Database Product Description

The student aid product will print out a summary of all award information found in the detailed
reports (i.e., name of sponsor, application deadline, numbers Of awards per year and the
average amount of each award.) This information is followed by a complete detail of the
award including: name of sponsor, address. type of award (scholarship, grant. fellowship,
work, loan, etc.) telephone number, number of awards, average award, deadline, and any
special additional criteria, (i.e., must be an entering freshman, majoring in Accounting and
have a 3.0 GPA). The agency has the capability to delete any award or type from the _
database. In addition, the agency can print the report by selectivity of types of awards (i.e..
scholarships, loans. etc.) or any combination of choice.

The intent is to have MI-CASHE applications available at most high school counseling ofﬁces
or college financial aid Offices, or by writing to MOE/SSP. It is important to note that there is
no guarantee of award consideration. It is the student‘s prompt and persistent action, together
with the program sponsor‘s selection pattern, that will determine whether consideration for an

award will be forthcoming.

 

204

- MEMORANDUM
MHCHUGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

TO: C. Danford Austin DATE: August 25. 1993

FROM: Gary Hawks
SUBJECT: MI-CASQ

Enclosed is a brief description of the Ml-CASHE° system and the rationale to operate it as a
self-supporting entity. Also enclosed is a proposed amendment for the 1993-94 appropriations
bill of the Michigan Department of Education (Section 210). Could you please assist us in
submitting this amendment for the 1993-94 fiscal year?

There is an existing deduct. account number 110-31-2125 relating to Section 210 Of the
Department of Education Appropriation Act. If the Section 210 proposed amendment is
acceptable. we anticipate utilizing this deduct to account for the revenues generated from the
application fee for MI-CASHE° users.

If you have any questions on this matter. please feel free to contact H. Jack Nelson or
Antonio Flores of my staff. Thank you for your assistance in processing the proposed
amendment.

 

205

 

MI-CASHE" SYSTEM

MI-CASHE‘° is a comprehensive computer system for locating sources Of scholarships
and other student ﬁnancial aid programs from a database Of over 200,000 awards
sponsored by more than 4,000 organizations nationwide. Users will complete a form
with basic personal and career information which will be processed by MI-CASHE° to
match users with potential sources Of financial aid. The list Of prospective sources of
aid for each user will include a variety Of data, including selection criteria and
timelines, for each potential award. A modest fee Of $15 per application will allow
Ml-CASHE’° to Operate on a self-supported basis. The system is scheduled for
initiation in early October 1993.

The need for Ml-CASHE° is amply documented. While the availability Of state and
federal student aid resources has leveled Off and even decreased in some years, the
costs for college attendance have escalated at a much faster rate than the consumer
price index. The demand for greater post-high school education as a prerequisite to
enter the labor market is further exacerbating the need for student financial aid.
Unscrupulous commercial outlets frequently exploit this greater need for information on
student financial aid resources and charge exorbitant fees to unsuspecting parents
and students for Often outdated or irrelevant information. The need for MI-CASHE° is
therefore urgent and growing.

While developing MI-CASHE° as a state-Operated system, staff involved in this
process have been working quite diligently in cooperation with the leasing company
and has been able to advance the initiation phase earlier than anticipated. Also, state
legislators, including Representative Jessie Dalman, have recently expressed special
interest in having MI-CASHE‘° become operational as soon as possible for public use.
Thus, it is urgent that appropriate legislative action be taken so that MI-CASHE° can
be established as a self-supportive student financial aid information system in fiscal
year 1993-94.

 

Michigan Department of Education. Office of Student Financial Assistance. Support Services. PO. Box aoooe. Lacuna. Ml 48909. (517) 373-0457. FAX (5171 354351

206

PROPOSED BOILERPLATE AMENDMENT

Sec. 210. The department may receive and expend funds in addition to those
authorized in section 101 for providlng information on sources of financial aid to
citlzens and for conducting training and orientation workshops and seminars that are
consistent with the programmatic mission of the individual unit sponsoring or coordinating
the program. Not later than January 2, 1994, the department shall provide the senate and
house appropriations subcommittees responsible for the department's budget and the
senate and house fiscal agencies with a report indicating the program, number of
participants, costs incurred, and income received for the immediately preceding fiscal year.

207

MEMORANDUM

MICHIGAN IIDII'IR/NRTMENT ©E EDUCAT C )I

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

OFFICE OF STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Anne DATE: April 21, 1994
Walt

MI-CASHE" Fees

It would be advantageous to develop an official position on program fees for those reportedly
unable and really unable to pay the current $15 fee. The inquiry from the Midland County
JTPA staffer requires a final response. Also, I believe It was either Jack, Antonio or Dan
Schooley who raised the issue of special fee arrangements at a meeting involving the Jobs
Commission. That, and the usual probing by external agency staffers, dictates we generate
some official position and publicize it. Moreover, a consistent position for program users and
advisers promotes clarity and credibility.

There are several issue subsets involved in the general policy development including:

1.

What is affordable or, more specifically, how much "substitute" (compensating)
revenues will the authorities provide? In short, what amount can we allow
to be subtracted from fee income?

What groups should be covered: the disadvantaged, minorities, the under-
represented in postsecondary education, the unemployed (i.e., displaced
workers)?

What means test, if any, would be acceptable? Current eligibility for other
programs for the needy, the unemployed, welfare recipients?

What documentation would be acceptable? Statements by agency people,
high school counselors, proof of unemployed status by relevant copies?

What administrative effort could and/or should be devoted to the process
(#4)?

If limits are to be set regarding forgone income, is a voucher distribution
system the way to handle such limits?

 

208

The choices for proceeding on this topic appear to include:

A) The fee is modest enough that no further position is needed. That is, originally
establishing the low fee is our verdict in the matter.

B) Come up with a specific set of criteria; a distinct, workable policy and go
public.

C) Use the case-by-case approach, perhaps by an 'intemal committee" with
broad, general guidelines.

It would be useful for you, me and Peggy to meet and discuss the issue subsets and then
write up a rationale and recommendation for Antonio (or perhaps Jack?)

WAzsn
c. Peggy LaFleur

 

209

MEMORANDUM .
MICHIGAN HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY
MICHIGAN HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENT LOAN AUTHORITY

TO: C. Danford Austin DATE: 4-5—94
FROM: H. Jack Nelson lb?"

SUBJECT: Justiﬁcation of sole source contract

As a service to Michigan residents, the Michigan Higher Education Assistance
Authority (MHEAA) and the Michigan Higher Education Student Loan Authority
(MHESLA) established a service to help families locate additional sources of funding
for educational expenses.

Over the past ten years, computer search services have become a popular franchise
business. Unfortunately, many of these out-of-the-home franchises overcharge
students (as much as $75, $80, or $300) for information. Some may offer fraudulent
guarantees. The Department of Education received numerous calls from parents,
counselors and students about the legitimacy of these various companies. Users
were looking for reassurances from us. Staff could only refer students to the Better
Business Bureau of the state in which the service was operating. As an alternative to
these companies, the authorities set up their own comprehensive, non-profit service to
keep Michigan dollars in the state and to provide families with a complete and
creditable service.

Last year the Department of Management and Budget issued a Request for Proposal
(RFP) to receive bids on database systems. As a result of the competitive bid
process, it was decided that the best service was the College Aid Sources for Higher
Education (CASHE‘) by National College Services Limited (NCSL). Two universities
in Michigan were using this system (CMU and WMU). Both found it to be a reliable,
creditable service. When the state leased this system in November of 1993, both
schools canceled their services in support of the state service. The clientele they had
for CASHE" was referred to the Department.

The CASHE" database is still the best database available with 14,000 resources and
150,000 awards from 4,100 different sponsors. The state's service is known as
Ml-CASHE° for the Michigan version of the CASHE" system. This link to the
credibility of the CASHE° system has been used with high school counselors, college
financial aid and admissions ofﬁcers, parents, students, etc. Since November of 1993,
the state, via the Ml-CASHE° system, has processed over 2,881 student applications
and has collected $43,185.00 in processing fees. This system has already acquired a
reputation as a creditable service. All of our in-house hardware and software are
working well with the CASHE" system.

 

210

Dr. C. Danford Austin

Page Two
April 5, 1994

In addition, staff has created an extensive packet of information for the program using
the Ml-CASHE° logo. These materials are designed as counseling tools and are well
received by users. These items have gained recognition and identification with the MI-

CASHE" logo.

It would be a great disadvantage to change vendors for this program. The
equipment/system is working well. Credibility has been established and a reputation
has been developed based On this system. Based on the history of this system, it is
expedient to enter into a sole source contract with NCSL to lease the CASHE°

system.

Your assistance in obtaining the necessary authorizations for this sole source contract
will be most appreciated.

HJstn
c: Antonio Flores
Anne Barnard

BIBLIOGRAPHY

REFERENCES

Abrahamsson, B. (1993). W Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

Aiming for accuracy: What we do to get the facts straight. (1996, Fall). Money
guide;Mnney_Magazine, p. 5.

American Council on Education (ACE). (1992, July 27). Facts In brief. Who gets
grands and who gets loans? Wits. p. 3.

American Council on Education (ACE). (1995, June 26). Budget plan would out
$108 from student loans. HigIJQLEduQaIiQELaLMaﬁQnaLAﬂaILS 0.1

AnagendajoLthexeaLJDQQ (30th Anniversary Colloquia Proceedings). (1985).

New York: College Scholarship Service, College Entrance Examination
Board.

 

Bear, J. (1984). W993. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.

Bennett, R. D. (1994, Summer/Fall). Using scholarship search services.
W.6.17-18.

Bierlein, L. A. (1993). Commemialjssuesineducationamolicy (Vol.4).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Bob, 8. H. (1995, August). Washington update: FY 1996 budget resolution and
reconciliation. MSEAANmsIIna. 5. 1,4,6.

Burd, S. (1995, September 15). Administration resists plans to cut student aid.
Chmnidecﬂzligherﬁducatien. p A33

Cates, W. M. (1985). AW. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

211

212

Collison, M. N- K. (1992, July). States hope to curb ”scholarship search“
companies that prey on anxious students and their families. Chronicleor

HigheLEducation. pp A29-A31.

Coomes, M. D. (1988). Student ﬁnancral aid: An historical perspective. lnA. L.

Rentz&G. L. Saddlemire(Eds.),SludenLaﬂa1Ls_ﬂJnmIQns_m_high£[
e_dooation(pp.155-184). Springﬁeld, IL. Charles C. Thomas.

Davis, J. S., & VanDusen, W. D. (1978). Wm
ﬁnanciaLaid. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Ehrenberg, R. G., 8. Murphy, S. H. (1993, July/August). What price diversity?:
The death of need-based financial aid at selective private colleges and _
universities. Change. pp. 64-73. ’

 

Fenske, R. H., Huff, R. B., &Associates. (1983). Hendooolgofjtuoentjnanoie) If
aio. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

' A
I I'I' I'I‘ 30. o. 'I I I3 ‘I l - “No I 0 ‘III- .IO.

nationeljymoosiom. (1993, April). Washington, DC. National

Commission on Responsibilities for Financing Postsecondary Education.

Flint, T. A. (1992, December). Parental and planning inﬂuences on the formation

of student college choice sets. EmathDﬂgIJQLEduQaﬂQn. 33. 689-
708.

Frances, C. (1989). Uses and misuses of demographic projections: Lessons for

the 1990’ s. in A. Levine 8. Associates (Eds) Sbapmbigbemdunaﬁonls

W. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Frances, C. (1990). Key economic indicators for higher education. In K. H.

Hansen &J. W. Meyerson (Eds.,) ljjgneLeouoatiom‘Injonengjno
economy. New York: Macmillan.

Gill, J. I., &Saunders, L. (1992, Winter). Conducting policy analysrs In higher
education. NeIILDiLectionsioLJnstitutionaLBeseach. 16.15-27.

Gladieux, L. E., Knapp, L. 6., &Merchant, R. (1993, September). ILenoan

W. New York. College Entrance Examination
Board.

213

Hansen, J. S. (1992). The shifting roles of parents and students; in the changing

dimensions of student aid. NahLD'lLeuanmLtlianaLEauuhan. 14,21-
31.

Higher Education Amendments of 1992. Public Law 102-325 (July 23, 1992).
102d Congress. Title lV-Student Assistance. Part A—Grants to Students
in Attendance at Institutions of Higher Education. Chapter V-Public
Information; Section 409A. Database and Information Line, 106
STAT.501.

Hook, J. (1983, November 16). U. S. panel hits erosion of aid to the needy: Can

”only the wealthy be healthy and wise”? CbmnideaﬂjianaLEduutian.
pp. 1, 20.

Immerwahr, J. & Farkas, S. (1993, September). Ineclosinogaieway;
QailfarmansaansldaLthaanIanaLeauuhanaxstem (Report by the Public

Agenda Foundation for the California Higher Education Policy Center).
Los Angeles: California Higher Education Policy Center.

Isaac, S., &Miohael, w. B. (1971). WW
0 ‘OIOIO OII 0‘ II‘IOO .IO ._ 0.‘ I I‘0 -III0

0 I D
e: e. le‘..i._e|e o- g-e_._e|._|e l‘e:|._e._

sciences. EDITS Publishers.

Johnstone, D. B. (1986). ShannajneuastmhlgnaLeauuhamaam

IIIq- II I '5I000III -:300 0

W: New York: College

Entrance Examination Board.

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1981). SjanoaLdsjox

W. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Kieman, M. (1990, July 2). Can a computer help pay tuition bills? LLS,_NeyIs_&
Wadaﬂepad. p. 59.

Kirshstein, R. J., Sherman, D. R., Tikoff, V. K, Masten, C., & Fainlveather, J.

(1990. November). ItleescalaﬁnaaastsatnignaLeaaaatian.
Washington, DC. Ofﬁce of Planning, Budget& Evaluation, U. S.

Department of Education.

Klecka, w. R. (1980). W
saﬁaLsaianaas. Newbury Park, CA. Sage Publications.

214

Knapp. L. G. (1992, June). SaumeaatstudantjnanaiaLaidJnJmaa
(Washington Research Report for the College Entrance Examination
Board). Washington, DC: College Entrance Examination Board.

Knapp. L. G. (1992, October). BanawingJaLaallegeJnJmaQ (Washington
Research Report for the College Entrance Examination Board).

Washington, DC: College Entrance Examination Board.

Komfeld, L. L., Siegel, G. M. &Seigel, W. L. (1981). W

O
O ...IIIO I‘ OIIO‘: ._IO 0 00. :0 O O‘I II I‘.

New York: Rawson, Wade.

Leslie. L. L.. &Brinkman. PT (1988)- Inaeaonamiaxalueamghemauaatian

New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan Publishing.

Light, R. J. Singer, J. D, &Willett, J. B. (1990) Wan
anjiahaLeauuhan. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.

Majchrzak, A. (1984). MethodsiomalicueseamMApplied Social Research
Methods Series, Vol. 3). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

MakmaaaﬂeaeaﬂardabﬂgaiLEinaLrepan. (1993, February). Washington,
DC: National Commission on Responsibilities for Financing
Postsecondary Education.

”3'9“": J- B- (1939) EmanamaaaalleaaaauaahamJDajssantialauidajaLIba
303. New York: Plenum Press.

McPherson, M. S. &Schapiro, M. O. (1991). Kaea'lnaﬁallagejﬁaLdaalaL

GaxemmanhandaauutianaLappanunim Washington, DC. Brookings
Institute.

Mendosa, R. (1992, April). Flndlng the money for college. How to get an edge
in the serious race for scholarship money. Hispanioausiness, pp. 22,24.

Merisotis, J. P. (Ed.). (1991, Summer). The changing dimensions of student aid.
II D' l' Ell'l El I' 19.

Mortimer, K. P. (1992, Winter). Confessions of a researcher turned policy-

maker. NemdlreahansjaunsmuhanaLLesearanMapmgjﬂeahxe
palIatLanalysannIaDaLeauaahan. 20.

Mumper, M. (1993, Wlnter). The affordability of public highereducation: 1970-
90.8e1iattLaLtIiabaLEduutian. 16. 157- 180

mar-“7' ——~

 

215

Murdock, T. A. (1989, Wlnter). Does ﬁnancial aid really have an effect on
student retention? JaumalaLStuaanLEinanaialAia. 1.9. 446.

National Commission on Responsibilities for Financing Postsecondary Education.

w. (1993, April). Washington, DC: Author.

O’Connell, V. (1993). Don’t get bilked by scholarship search ﬁrms. Money,
EaLeaast. 21. 22.

Pascarella, E. T., &Terenzini, P. T. (1991). W051
W. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.

Paying for college with less help from Uncle Sam. (1982, October). Changing
limes, pp. 45-48, 50, 54.

Pendergast, J. (1992, January 24-26). Bearing college costs. You still have time
to scrape up ﬁnancial aid, even as acceptance letters start to arrive. USA
Memo. 9- 16-

Porter, 0. F. (1989). Undemraduateuamalehanandpersntanujuauuear

National Institute of Independent Colleges and Universities.

WWW (Panel on Quality

Improvement in Student Financial Aid Programs and Committee on
National Statistics, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education, National Research Council). (1993). Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.

Ramist, L. (1981). CoilegestuoenLamitionjnomenﬂon (College Board Report
No. 81-1). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Selbo, J. (1995, May 15). Director of Financial Aid, University of Wlsconsin-
Madison. Telephone interview.

Stampen, J. O., with assistance from R. W. Reeves. (1983). SILLdanLaiLLana
aublianignaLeauaatiarLAaLagLessLeaan. Washington. DC: American

Association of State Colleges and Universities.

St. John, E. P. (1992, Fall). Workable models for Instltutlonal research on the

impact of student I“ nanCIal aid. JaumaLaLSIudanLEinanaiaLAid. 22. 13-
26.

216

St. John, E. P., &Starkey. J. B. (1995, Spring). The Inﬂuence of prices on the

persistence of adult undergraduates. JoumaLoLSjuoem_Emenciai_Aio, 25,
7-17.

I: 0‘: o " tum. «0 III! I‘ .‘Oqlll‘l o 0.02:”. (1994-

95). Washington, DC: Federal Student Aid Information Center.

Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Disanminantanalxsisinastudmtgroaadiﬂerenaes.
Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Thomdill, S. (1983, Spring). Some insights into computerized scholarship search
service. JaumalﬂﬁiudanlﬁnanmaLAia. 13.

Tinto, v. (1987). Luxinaaalleaaz_Betninkina_tne_causas_ana_caLes_oLstudant
’ ahﬁlian. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tuckman. H. P.. & Whalen. E. (Ed). Subsidiesjamgnamauutianjngissues.
New York: Praeger.

Urahn, S. K. (1989, June). StudentandaaLenLanituaasaboumnanaing

:°,.<'I° I300!" ....'.'.HI.'.'.I-I. I""-.

W. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Minnesota.

US. Congress, House Committee on Education & Labor, Subcommittee on
Postsecondary Education. (1991, July 31 8. August 1). Haaﬂnasanjne
IOI-,.0I0 I‘IOI‘ 00$¢I-°IO 'ck“0-.I-.
Hearings before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education of the
Committee on Education & Labor, House of Representatives, One
Hundred Second Congress, first session, Washington, DC.

Wallace, T. P. (1993, July/August). Public higher education finance: The
dinosaur age persists. Change. pp. 56-63.