As Congress continues to consider legislation to expand Pell Grants to shorter-term programs, the topic of assessing quality remains at the center of that debate. That’s because quality non-degree credentials can lead to good jobs and family-sustaining wages. Several states are at the forefront of defining, measuring, and tracking quality in non-degree credentials. National Skills Coalition’s report The Non-Degree Credential Quality Imperative examines how states have done this work and offers takeaways for how to advance quality assurance so that policymakers feel confident in investing in non-degree credentials, students have confidence in their training programs, and employers know which programs effectively prepare people for careers.
For the last decade, NSC and its network have advocated to expand Pell Grant eligibility to shorter-term education and training programs offered by postsecondary institutions. Presently, in order for a student to receive a Pell Grant they have to meet individual eligibility requirements (primarily being lower-income) and be enrolled in an education or training program that is also eligible for Pell. That eligibility is partially based on the length of a program, which at minimum must be 600 clock hours and 15 weeks. NSC believes that expanding Pell Grants eligibility to high quality programs that fall below this threshold could provide students with more opportunities to receive financial assistance while meeting the needs of employers in high-demand industries and sectors.
There have been various legislative proposals aimed at expanding Pell Grants to shorter-term programs during the 118th Congress. However, this blog is going to focus on two: the stalwart in this arena – the JOBS Act; and the latest newcomer – the Bipartisan Workforce Pell Act (BWPA).
While there has been a great deal of bipartisan support for the concept of expanding the Pell Grant programs to quality short-term education and training programs, figuring out the details on how that should be achieved has resulted in years of gridlock. There are two main points of contention – how quality should be defined and measured; and whether to allow for participation by for-profit institutions.
Committee leadership had hoped that the BWPA would be voted on by the full House in late-February. However, there has been ongoing controversy in the form of an offset. In order to pay for the mandatory and discretionary costs associated with the implementation of Short-Term Pell, the BWPA has sought to either restrict access to certain federal financial aid or enact student loan related penalties on so-called ‘endowment tax colleges.’ Opposition to those restrictions and penalties has prevented the bill from receiving a vote by the full chamber.
Last summer, a version of the JOBS Act was slated to be part of a workforce markup where several workforce-oriented bills would be considered by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP). The markup ran into some roadblocks with the Senate’s proposed apprenticeship bill. Thus, consideration of that bill and all bills (including JOBS) slated for that markup were shelved.
The Senate HELP Committee is gearing up once again to consider a package of workforce bills with a Memorial Day-ish target. At this point it’s unclear if that’s going to happen and it’s also unclear if JOBS (or a version of JOBS) would be part of that package. There is very little chance the Senate would consider the House’s BWPA as-is. HELP Committee Chair Sanders has a great deal of trepidation around the inclusion of for-profits and the Senate would also likely want to create their own marker on how short-term Pell Grants should be structured. Enthusiasm for short-term Pell is not as great in the Senate compared to the House, but it could still be included as part of a larger package of bills.
The new elephant in the room is a potential shortfall for the Pell Grant program. Everyone who qualifies for a Pell Grant receives an award. The Pell Grant program operates with both mandatory funding and annual discretionary funding. Sometimes that funding covers all costs of the program and Pell has a surplus. Other times there is not enough funding, and the program has a shortfall. Pell has been in surplus for around a decade. Increases to the Pell Grant maximum award have been paid for largely using the surplus. Restoration of year-round Pell Grants was also paid for with the surplus. Generally, the plan was to also pay for short-term Pell Grants with the surplus. But recent projections show that the Pell Grant program is slated for a shortfall in the coming years. This adds an additional wrinkle to the passage of JOBS, BWPA, or any version of a short-term Pell bill as some will question the utility of adding additional students to the program at a time when the program may face financial challenges. However, this speedbump does not necessarily prevent Congress from passing short-term Pell, but it will likely add another layer of discussion.
Sign up for our Making College Work campaign to keep track of all the latest developments on short-term Pell Grants.
