The NCI proposal would eliminate the Perkins Loan program and consolidate FSEOG and FWS into one fund that could be used as grant or work (or both) at the discretion of the institution. This approach would better allow schools to use the funds to address the needs of their students and further institutional recruitment, diversity, and retention goals. Details about this proposal are given in the NCI Issue Paper, Restoring Responsiveness to Campus-Based Funds.

How would you use a consolidated fund like this at your institution? What student needs do you think you could meet, that you can’t today?

During recent NCI Listening Sessions, some have suggested a reform and reconfiguration of the existing Title IV programs. Several of these ideas appear below. Please review these ideas, and then express your thoughts on the current structure of the Title IV programs, whether it should be changed, and if so, how it should be changed?

• Some feel that the Title IV programs should be reformed to provide one grant, one loan, and one work assistance program. This would mean the elimination of the FSEOG and Perkins Loan programs, and possibly redirecting the funding to a larger Federal Pell Grant program. How do you feel about this idea?
• Alternatively, some suggest the campus-based programs be modified to combine the monies and provide those funds to schools in a “block grant” to be used any way the school desires for student aid or student retention and/or graduation enhancement programs. Do you agree?
• Those who argue against these consolidations of aid programs into single types or provision of block grants suggest it would result in a total loss of these federal appropriations or make them a juicer target in times of budget crises. What do you think of these arguments?