A Benchmark for Making College Affordable

Transcription

1 A Bechmark for Makig College Affordable The Rule of 10 A white paper from Lumia Foudatio

2 A Bechmark for Makig College Affordable Defiig the affordability problem College prices have icreased by 45 percet o average over the past decade, while household icome has declied by 7 percet i the same period. Accordig to a Lumia/Gallup survey i 2015, more tha three-quarters of America adults do ot thik educatio beyod high school is affordable for everyoe i the atio who eeds it. 1 College affordability is a major atioal issue ad receives extesive coverage i the media. Ideed, the cost to studets ad families of attedig college has bee risig i real dollars for may years. At prices, studets takig For-profit Public 2+2 Noprofit four-year Public four-year All istitutios Net price of four-year degree, by sector (Costat dollars) $45,600 $59,300 $54,500 four years to complete a bachelor s degree would pay a et price, 2 o average, betwee $59,400 (if they started at a commuity college ad trasferred to a public four-year istitutio) to $111,600 (if attedig a private o-profit istitutio). $59,300 As the data suggest, private uiversities have the highest costs of attedace (tuitio, fees, room ad board), which may explai why their prices seem so ofte to be featured i media coverage of the issue. However, prices have icreased withi public higher educatio istitutios, hiderig families ability to pay over time. There are certaily complex reasos behid this growth i tuitio amog colleges, ad the impact o studets ca be felt i terms of icreasig et prices the amout studets pay after fiacial aid is take ito accout. The issue of affordability is closely tied to the growig cocer about studet debt aother issue of great cocer to studets, policymakers ad the public. Oe of the more dramatic statistics reported recetly is that total studet loa debt is ow more tha $1 trillio. I , the average loa debt for completers (at all udergraduate degree levels) was $14,100, up from $6,400 i I part, the aggregate amout of studet debt has grow because of icreased college-goig rates across the board a positive tred overall. Studet debt is a complex issue, ad whether or ot $69,500 $72,000 $78,200 $85,700 $100,700 $111,600 curret debt levels are sustaiable, the effect of loas o studet decisios about whether ad how to pursue college educatio particularly by firstgeeratio studets ad studets of color is a issue with sigificat ramificatios for attaimet ad equity. Perhaps usurprisigly, lower-icome families are more likely tha families i all other household icome brackets to say fiacial assistace is a very importat selectio criterio for college attedace, so the effects of risig college uaffordability are of particular cocer for these studets. The proportio of graduates with sigificat levels of debt has also rise, with 29 percet of graduates owig more tha $20,000, up from 9 percet i Debt levels are especially high for black studets, for studets attedig private colleges (both for-profit ad oprofit) ad for lowicome idepedet studets. Usurprisigly, they are lower for two-year college graduates ad for depedet studets i families with icomes above $100,000. 2

3 The Rule of 10 Lumia Foudatio s cocer with college affordability is iextricably tied to our goal; that by percet of Americas will hold high-quality degrees, certificates ad other credetials. The simple fact is that oly 9 percet of studets from the lowest icome quartile complete bachelor s degrees, compared to 54 percet of studets from the highest icome quartile. 5 Eve whe they have higher test scores, low-icome studets eroll i college at lower rates tha their higher-icome peers, have lower persistece rates, ad are less likely to graduate. I fact, oly about 56 percet of low-icome studets with test scores i the highest quartile complete bachelor s degrees, compared to 80 percet of their higher-icome peers. As a atio o its way to havig o majority populatio, we will ot reach the goal without greatly expadig attaimet for populatios that have historically lagged i college completio. For example, we estimate that we will eed 700,000 more black studets ad 3 millio more Latio studets to complete postsecodary educatio i order to reach Goal Affordability is a huge issue for these studets. Cosider that while 63 percet of white public college graduates borrow for college, more tha 80 percet of black public college grads do a gap that has wideed over the past decade. 6 Black ad Latio studets ad families also have, o average, less tha a teth of the accumulated wealth that white studets ca draw upo for support, 7 ad Latio studets i particular are more likely tha others to cite fiacial reasos for droppig out of college. These are the stark fiacial facts that make affordability such a critical issue for college attaimet. The exploratio of a bechmark Lumia s approach to affordability is to use research ad aalysis to develop ew studet fiace models to iform policymakers ad higher educatio leaders as they struggle with these complex issues. The first steps i developig these models icluded idetifyig the problems with the curret system of studet fiacial support ad creatig a set of desig priciples to guide our growig work i this area. The desig priciples for ew studet fiace models are that they: 1. Make college more affordable. 2. Focus o trasparecy of prices ad subsidies. 3. Embed icetives for studets ad istitutios. 4. Alig across federal, state ad istitutioal systems. Lumia the supported a series of papers that explored what some of these ew models might look like based o the desig priciples. These papers tracked a emergig atioal coversatio aroud studet fiace ad were released at the 2014 Lumia Ideas Summit i Washigto, D.C. Oe major result of the papers ad the summit was the fidig that it should be possible ot just to defie affordability more clearly, but also to use this defiitio as a meas to bechmark performace of higher educatio systems i terms of makig college opportuities affordable to studets. I other words, it is possible to move beyod philosophical debates about affordability to a more rigorous ad trasparet defiitio that ca be used to iform the ogoig policy coversatio. As we kow, higher educatio is t the oly idustry strugglig with the challege of icreasig costs ad prices. May other social sectors have faced similar challeges of addressig cocers about affordability, ad we ca lear from them. As part of this work, Lumia assembled experts i fields outside educatio to see what isights they could offer o the issue of affordability i higher educatio. Cosideratios from these other social areas, such as housig ad health care, were reflected i coversatios about the bechmark. As a follow-up to our learig from experts i various social sectors, Lumia hosted a diverse group of higher educatio experts to explore how these isights might iform our collective thikig about higher educatio affordability ad aid Lumia s thikig about a affordability bechmark. While this group was desiged so members could led their best thikig, they were ot asked to come to cosesus o oe bechmark. The culmiatio of Lumia s iitial framig work, coversatios with experts i other social sectors, ad this advisory group of higher educatio experts iformed our thikig about the bechmark described below. Affordability bechmark for higher educatio So what is affordable? Most cocepts of affordability are based o what college should cost, ot what studets ca afford to pay. For example, colleges ad uiversities ofte set tuitio based ot o what studets ca afford but rather o what the istitutios eed i terms of reveue. The coversatios about affordability typically begi with what college 3

4 A Bechmark for Makig College Affordable prices are, what grat aid is available, ad the ultimately wid up with what studets are left to pay. Its meaig has chaged over the years, which complicates efforts to compare families EFCs over time. Istead, the studet-cetered model proposed here begis with what studets ca reasoably cotribute, ad the suggests that the system be built aroud their eeds. This bechmark is based o several key assumptios: 1. There are three basic sources of studet fuds for payig for college: studet work, family resources ad studet debt. Family resources, such as savigs, are ultimately a offset to studet work ad/or debt. 2. The itet of the bechmark is to describe how affordable college should be from a studet perspective, ot to discuss the cost to educate a particular studet or cohort of studets. 3. All of the higher educatio commuity, icludig higher educatio leadership, policymakers ad others, eed to work to build a higher educatio system that meets this bechmark. 4. This bechmark itself is ot a pricig model ad is ot self-fulfillig. This draft merely provides a outlie. The bechmark itself does ot reflect ay declaratio of how curret policy costructs should be chaged; for example, it does ot seek to set loa limits, tuitio structures or state subsidy amouts. 5. Some people ca t afford to save aythig for college, ad it is our imperative, as a society cocered with equity, to make sure that these idividuals have access to high-quality postsecodary educatio optios despite these ecoomic barriers. May reports ad expert aalyses of college affordability are based o the federal Expected Family Cotributio (EFC) calculatio, which is used to calculate studets eligibility for federal ad may state eed-based aid programs. However, our discussios idicate that the EFC calculatio is problematic because: It lacks face validity as a measure amog the geeral public. It s covoluted ad difficult for the average perso (ad perhaps the average policymaker) to uderstad. I cotrast, a bechmark should be a viable way for higher educatio leadership ad policymakers to assess progress toward affordability goals with a commo uit of measuremet. However, this is ot a policy proposal. This is a measure of what studets ad families ca afford to pay. We suggest that future policy proposals be rooted i this sort of cocrete measure of affordability. Policymakers ad higher educatio leaders will ecessarily eed to thik about how to use the bechmark to iform policy. For istace, give that low-icome studets, eve with the support of their families, will likely ot have the ability to save for college, should they be required to take o ay debt at all? Ad, eve if the highest-icome families could afford to save more, should public college tuitio be capped at a lower amout? Additioally, sice a modest amout of reasoable work to help cover livig expeses is part of the bechmark, should states ad colleges work together to improve work-study opportuities for studets? We believe the affordability bechmark will cotribute to more substative ad costructive discussio of these ad other policy questios. Ulike the EFC calculatio, the affordability bechmark ca also serve as a marker of how much, o average, studets ad families ca reasoably afford to save for college ad how much studets should work while erolled to pay for college. Of course, there will be differeces i idividual cotexts ad situatios, which meas that the bechmark will ot be appropriate for every perso i every situatio. However, it should provide a geeral guidelie to frame broad discussios. I the same way that ot everyoe speds a third of their mothly icome o housig paymets, ot everyoe will pay for college i exactly this way. It is our hope that the affordability bechmark will cotribute to the ogoig policy dialogue about college affordability i the comig moths ad years. However, istead of these coversatios beig shrouded i ambiguity, they ca be grouded i a more specific idea of what affordability actually is. 4

5 The Rule of 10 The Rule of 10: 10 percet for 10 years + 10 hours of work Studets should pay o more for college tha the savigs geerated through 10 percet of discretioary icome for 10 years ad the earigs from workig 10 hours a week while i school. This bechmark essetially creates a slidig scale of ability to pay. A studet from a family whose icome is less tha 200 percet of the poverty rate is expected to cotribute o more tha he or she ca ear i 10 hours of work per week. (Curretly, the poverty rate is $23,540 for a sigle perso or $31,860 for a family of two.) This affordability bechmark icludes these critical desig elemets: 1. A time horizo for payig for college that makes the process seem more maageable. 2. A icome exclusio, ackowledgig that some families make too little to be reasoably asked to save aythig at all for college. 3. The idea that studets ca cotribute to the costs associated with attedig college through resources from work, but that cotributio should be limited to prevet work iterferig from with school. 4. A easily uderstadable metric. If idividual studets ad families do t uderstad what affordable meas, the the bechmark will ot work i the log term. Compoet #1: Time. Alog with a expectatio of modest studet work, studets should have to pay o more for college tha what they or their families ca reasoably save i 10 years. Studets should pay o more for college tha the savigs geerated through 10 percet of discretioary icome for 10 years ad the earigs from workig 10 hours a week while i school. Cosiderig that a college educatio is somethig that ca be saved for over time, particularly give the relatively high college-goig rates of high school graduates, families ad idividuals with the ability to save should be ecouraged to do so. May higher-icome families already save for college; ufortuately there is little i the way of thikig about what a appropriate amout to save might be. For studets who are the primary earers i their ow families, this bechmark ca also suggest a path forward. Compoet #2: Percetage of icome. Idividuals ad families ca reasoably afford to cotribute 10 percet of their discretioary icome to postsecodary educatio, for a limited amout of time. Te percet of oe s discretioary icome has emerged as the stadard for determiig the amout of affordable loa repaymet, ad it follows that 10 percet of discretioary icome is reasoable to expect to be committed for postsecodary educatio expeses more geerally, whe icludig a exclusio for those who do t make eough to have ay discretioary icome. The affordability bechmark is calculated based o the assumptio that idividuals ad families makig more tha 200 percet of the poverty rate ca afford to save 10 percet of their icome above that rate. This lie also serves as a icome exclusio, so that o oe is expected to save util they reach at least 200 percet of the poverty level. The poverty rate differs by family size, so that larger families receive a larger icome exclusio tha smaller oes. For istace, a sigle mother with two childre would be asked to save a smaller amout tha a sigle mother with oe child. 5

6 A Bechmark for Makig College Affordable The, a small portio (10 percet) of ay icome eared above 200 percet of poverty would be expected to be saved for college. Compoet #3: Work. Studets ca reasoably work a average of 10 hours per week while i school, or 500 hours per year, ad cotribute those earigs toward the cost of educatio. Te hours of work at miimum wage for approximately 50 weeks would be $3,625 aually or $14,500 8 over the course of four years. This amout would be available to help cover the full costs of college while erolled, icludig livig expeses. Back i 1971, you could pay for public college tuitio by workig about 10 hours a week at a part-time job. That s o loger the case. Postsecodary educatio has become more importat sice the, but it s also become much more expesive. Today s studet would have to work 24 hours a week at miimum wage every week of the year to pay for public college tuitio, without eve factorig i their basic costs of livig. makig $30,000 o average over the course of 10 years before returig to school. He or she would be expected to cotribute $53.83 mothly, $646 per year or $6,460 i total toward the full cost of postsecodary educatio. 9 Sigle paret: A sigle paret with oe child makig $35,000 might oly be able to cotribute $26/moth or $3,410 over the course of 10 years. This would mea that he or she should ot have to pay more tha $3,410 for a total degree program. Average family of four: Uder this bechmark, a family of four cosistetly makig a average of $50,000 could afford to cotribute $1,500 (i total) to college educatio for studets i the family, based o the idea that they could save $12.50 per moth for 10 years. Ay studets erolled could also cotribute $3,625 per year from work (assumig 10 hours per week at $7.25 per hour i pre-tax earigs). 10 Ay fiacial cotributio required of the family beyod these work ad savigs expectatios would be cosidered uaffordable. A ote about studet debt This bechmark is costructed with a reasoable savig rate so that studets, i a ideal world, do ot have to borrow for their postsecodary educatio. However, we recogize that this will ot be the case i all scearios, ad that some studets ad families will ot have either the resources or the time suggested i this bechmark. Therefore, i those cases, the amout i Compoets 1 ad 2 ca also serve as the maximum amout of debt that studets could reasoably repay, should they or their families ot be able to save at the time of their etry to college. However, the decisio to borrow is complex, ad policy decisios about studet loa debt should cosider the uequal outcomes associated with requirig studets from lower-icome families to borrow disproportioately. Examples Examples of what these bechmarks mea, i practice, are below. Adult studet: A sigle adult studet (with o childre) returig to college after a lull may be Upper-middle-icome family of four: A family makig a average of $100,000 aually over 10 years might be able to cotribute $51,500, based o a savigs estimate of $429/moth durig that time. Ay studets i the family could also cotribute $3,625 per year for each year of postsecodary educatio. If the family had oly saved $10,000 to cotribute to college at the time of a studet s etry to college, the family would still be resposible for the remaider which could, for istace, be cotributed via a combiatio of moey from curret earigs, additioal work, or loas. I each of these scearios, the studet could also cotribute a additioal $14,500 ($3,625 per year) from work over the course of four years to the total cost of attedace (icludig livig expeses) for a educatioal program. Though the Rule of 10 refers to 10 percet of icome, it is importat to remember that the 10 percet oly applies to the amout eared over the icome threshold. Whe lookig at the effective rate paid uder this bechmark, oe of the families i the examples above would be expected 6

7 The Rule of 10 to cotribute more tha 5 percet of total icome toward college expeses each year. What the Rule of 10 could mea for postsecodary affordability The broader use of this sort of commoly uderstood bechmark has the potetial to chage the way people thik about college affordability. For istace, state policymakers could use the bechmark i determiig the appropriate path forward o ew approaches such as Promise programs. Federal policymakers could use the bechmark i iformig the developmet of a ew federal-state partership for aid. Ad practitioers could use the bechmark i advisig studets of their best optios for college. Istitutios could use the affordability bechmark to aid i tuitio settig, set targets for cost reductios, or to idetify eeds for program redesig. To see how the affordability bechmark could be used, cosider agai the model of housig affordability. A geerally accepted stadard amog housig fiace experts is that o more tha 30 percet of a family s icome should be devoted to housig costs. This stadard shows up i differet ways i various cotexts. I discussig the eeds for affordable housig, the U.S. Departmet of Housig ad Urba Developmet suggests that families who pay more tha 30 percet of their icome for housig are cost burdeed ad may have difficulty affordig ecessities such as food, clothig, trasportatio, ad medical care. 11 I earlier decades, Faie Mae ad Freddie Mac would essetially ot purchase mortgages with balaces that exceeded a 28 percet debt-to-icome ratio, 12 causig leders to use this ratio i their uderwritig stadards as well. Though this ratio has crept up over time, it was rooted i the same rule of thumb about geeral housig affordability. Of course, idividuals, leders ad govermet etities cosider other factors whe makig decisios about mortgages, ad there are certai circumstaces uder which the threshold might be higher or lower. Still, these examples from the housig commuity suggest that a geerally accepted bechmark ca be useful i framig public policy expectatios that are fleshed out with more detail depedig o the programmatic cotext. As with the housig bechmark, this proposed college affordability bechmark merely expresses what families have the capacity to cotribute toward higher educatio. It does ot suggest how we should meet families eeds. To exted the housig aalogy, though we ca more uiversally describe whether housig is or is ot affordable, havig a bechmark is ot, i ad of itself, a solutio to uaffordable housig. Likewise, this bechmark brigs with it a clarity of aalysis to the affordability problem withi higher educatio. Movig forward, this bechmark could be used to judge policies accordig to their success i creatig a affordable higher educatio system. So why 10 percet? To be clear, 10 percet is ot a magic umber, ad 10 years is o magic timelie. As we ve leared from reviewig bechmarks i other social sectors, these sorts of public rules of thumb are ofte more art tha sciece, Still, i the affordability bechmark, these amouts are ot arbitrary. The measure is calculated by first takig the federally determied poverty level, ad the doublig it to create a icome exclusio that is the basis of the term discretioary icome. The idea is that ay Cosumer Expeditures Persoal isurace ad pesios 11% Etertaimet 5% Health care 8% Trasportatio 17% Apparel ad services 3% Food 14% Housig 33% Cash Cotributios 5% U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cosumer Expediture Survey, April 2015 Miscellaeous 2% Educatio 2% 7

8 A Bechmark for Makig College Affordable icome above 200 percet of the federal poverty level is discretioary. 13 The, the expectatio is that 10 percet of this discretioary amout could be reasoably saved for postsecodary expeses over a period of 10 years. Of course, there are limitatios to this model icome typically does t stay costat over 10 years, iterest o savigs ad returs o ivestmet vary, ad family structures chage over time. Whe implemetig this model o a practical level, decisios will eed to be made about which measure of icome to use ad how to determie whether studets are still members of their origial family uit, amog other cosideratios. It should be oted that the measure of discretioary icome suggested i this model (200 percet of poverty) is more geerous tha the curret measure used i the federal icome-based repaymet plas (150 percet of poverty). Policymakers purposefully chose to base the federal icomebased repaymet calculatio o Adjusted Gross Icome; clearly, o such choice has bee made regardig this proposed bechmark. For cotext regardig how families ow apportio their resources, see the precedig pie chart, which is based o data from the Cosumer Expediture Survey. 14 Agai, the affordability bechmark cotemplates that families would sped 10 percet of their discretioary icome, creatig a effective rate of betwee 0 percet ad 5 percet of total icome i the examples above, depedig o the family s icome. A ote o relyig o debt as a postsecodary affordability mechaism I costructig this bechmark, we ecessarily took a cosumptio view of payig for college rather tha focusig o the retur o ivestmet (ROI) approach. We discussed at legth what a reasoable amout of debt for postsecodary educatio might be. I particular, debt without a degree is ot a desirable outcome, so accurately determiig a appropriate amout of fiacig for postsecodary educatio requires some uderstadig of the risk associated with ocompletio, as well as the likely payoff of various programs. Give the high degree of ucertaity regardig all of these items the iability to guaratee returs, the serious disparities i completio by icome ad race, ad cocers about debt aversio amog certai studet populatios we decided to use a cosumptio-focused measure of affordability rather tha oe focused o ivestmet. Our aalysis focuses o figurig out what resources studets ad families might reasoably be expected to cotribute to a college educatio up frot. That is, we did ot make the assumptio that affordability should ecessarily be framed i terms of appropriate levels of future ivestmet or debt. Cosideratios of how loas should be factored ito a idividual s studet aid package are probably best made withi the cotext of the idividual studet s career aspiratios, choice of educatioal provider, persoal risk tolerace, ad program of study. Not oly do low-icome studets borrow more tha middle- ad upper-icome studets, black studets borrow more tha other studets. Also, a aversio to borrowig may cause Latio studets to work more or atted part time, compromisig their ability to focus o school. These demographically liked treds i borrowig are troublig ad suggest that we should cosider the policy impacts of uequal resources from the start of coversatios about affordability. Implicatios ad ext steps We believe this work ca add value to discussios at the federal, state ad istitutioal levels i the moths ad years to come i part because it ifuses a typically emotioal, aecdote-drive coversatio with a more cocrete idea of what college affordability looks like based o family icome, The bechmark does ot dictate tuitio or fiacial aid policy, ad may studets will ot be able to afford may colleges, based o curret pricig ad fiacial aid availability. However, the bechmark reflects a upper limit o what idividuals should be expected to pay for college based o their family circumstaces. We believe the bechmark must make sese for studets ad families i order for it to work as a frame of referece for policy. Sice there is o guaratee ow that families ca deped o the Rule of 10 to help them fid a affordable, highquality college optio, it is up to policymakers ad the higher educatio commuity to work together to make the bechmark a reality. Lumia suggests usig the Rule of 10 framig as a bechmark to actually make college affordable for all studets, ackowledgig that istitutios, systems ad 8

9 The Rule of 10 states could employ may differet strategies to meet the bechmark. This draft bechmark provides a outlie for future, more detailed iterpretive work that could iform policy ad practice. Next steps i determiig how to actualize the bechmark will ecessarily iclude cosideratio of a full set of specific actios that could be take by higher educatio leaders ad policymakers. Issues for further cosideratio could iclude (but are ot limited to): How best to assess quality withi the cotext of affordability. Examiig whether curret costructs of depedecy status still make sese. How best to calculate the appropriate amouts ad time horizo for someoe whose life circumstaces chage sigificatly durig the time cosidered by the bechmark. How to improve ad icrease eed-based aid to help meet the bechmark. How to determie appropriate state subsidies for public istitutios while cotrollig costs ad maagig tuitio to make the bechmark more realistic. Lumia looks forward to workig with diverse groups of thikers to flesh out specific ways this bechmark might be used to rethik how studets pay for college. The staff of Lumia Foudatio accepts resposibility for this workig cocept. It reflects our work, ot cosesus of those ivolved i the discussios. Further discussio ad modificatio of this idea will be advaced after a period of public review ad expert critique. Edotes 1. Lumia Foudatio ad Gallup (2015). Postsecodary Educatio Aspiratios ad Barriers. Washigto, D.C. 2. The et price for full-time studets is the cost of tuitio plus o-tuitio costs, icludig books, supplies, room, board, trasportatio ad persoal expeses mius all grat aid. 3. Departmet of Educatio, NCES. (2012). Natioal Postsecodary Studet Aid Study (NPSAS: 12), Studet Aid Fiacial Estimates for Istitute of Educatio Scieces. Washigto, D.C. 4. Departmet of Educatio, NCES. (1997). Natioal Postsecodary Studet Aid Study (NPSAS: 96), Methodology Report. Istitute of Educatio Scieces. Washigto, D.C. 5. Bailey, M. & Dyarski, S. (2011). Gais ad Gaps: Iequality i U.S. College Etry ad Completio. NBER. Cambridge, Mass. 6. Huelsma, M. (2015). The Debt Divide: The Racial ad Class Bias Behid the New Normal of Studet Borrowig. Demos. New York City. 7. Urba Istitute. (2014). Nie Charts about Wealth Iequality i America. Washigto, D.C. 8. The actual amout might be lower oce payroll taxes are calculated. These examples do ot iclude after-tax umbers, for ease of explaatio of the cocept. 9. If oe were to assume a modest iterest rate o actual savigs, the amout expected would be closer to $7,000; however this coceptual piece does ot iclude the effects of compoud iterest for ease of explaatio. 10. The actual amout might be lower oce payroll taxes are calculated. These examples do ot iclude after-tax umbers, for ease of explaatio of the cocept. 11. Housig ad Urba Developmet (HUD). Commuity Plaig ad Developmet: Affordable Housig. Washigto, D.C. 12. Schwartz, M. & Wilso, E. (2007). Who Ca Afford To Live i a Home? A look at data from the 2006 America Commuity Survey. U.S. Cesus Bureau. Washigto, D.C. 13. Of course, the federal poverty guidelies themselves are ot without cotroversy, but they are a commoly accepted way of determiig what it takes to have a basic stadard of livig i differet parts of the coutry. The poverty guidelies differ by family size ad whether a family uit is i the cotietal U.S. or elsewhere i the coutry. 14. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (April 2015). Cosumer Expediture Survey. 9

10 About Lumia Foudatio Lumia Foudatio is a idepedet, private foudatio committed to icreasig the proportio of Americas with high-quality degrees, certificates ad other credetials to 60 percet by Lumia s outcomes-based approach focuses o helpig to desig ad build a accessible, resposive ad accoutable higher educatio system while fosterig a atioal sese of urgecy for actio to achieve Goal As a private foudatio, Lumia Foudatio does ot support or oppose ay legislatio. Lumia provides educatioal iformatio, opartisa research ad aalysis to advace Goal P.O. Box 1806 Idiaapolis, IN Lumia Foudatio All rights reserved. August 2015