Higher Education: More Information Could Help Student Parents Access Additional Federal Student Aid

Student parents face many challenges, including paying for child care, that can make it difficult for them to complete a degree. The federal government supports student parents through Education's CCAMPIS program, which provides colleges funding for child care services, and federal student aid, which can also help students pay for child care. GAO was asked to provide information on student parents and the federal programs that support these students.

This report examines, among other objectives, what is known about the characteristics and degree completion of undergraduate students with children; what is known about the CCAMPIS program and how reliable Education's reported outcomes are; and to what extent selected schools publicize the option to increase federal student aid to help pay for child care. GAO analyzed 2009 and 2016 federal student data (the most recent available) and CCAMPIS program performance data, reviewed how the 62 schools that were awarded CCAMPIS grants in 2017 publicized the student aid option to help pay for child care, and reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations and agency documents. GAO interviewed officials from Education and selected schools.

More than one in five undergraduate students were raising children, and about half of student parents left school without a degree, according to Department of Education (Education) data. In 2015-2016, an estimated 22 percent of undergraduates (4.3 million of 19.5 million) were parents. An estimated 55 percent of student parents were single parents, 44 percent were working full-time while enrolled, and 64 percent attended school part-time. Undergraduate student parents had fewer financial resources to fund their education than students without children. Nearly half of student parents reported paying for child care, with monthly costs averaging about $490. A higher percentage of student parents left school without a degree (52 percent) compared to students without children (32 percent) as of 2009 (the most recent data available).

Education's Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program helped about 3,300 students pay child care costs for about 4,000 children in 2016-2017. Another 4,200 children were on waiting lists to receive assistance. Most CCAMPIS participants paid some child care fees after receiving subsidies—the median payment each month was about $160. Education measures participants' persistence in school and graduation rate to assess the performance of the CCAMPIS program. However, flaws in its calculations of these two measures prevented Education from reporting reliable results, making it difficult for Education and Congress to evaluate the program's effectiveness.

Some student parents could be eligible to increase their federal student loans to help pay for child care by asking their schools to include an allowance for dependent care expenses in their financial aid calculations. However, schools do not always publicize this allowance to current and prospective students. GAO reviewed the websites—where schools post other college cost information—of schools serving student parents and found that about two-thirds of these websites did not mention the allowance. Schools are not required—and Education does not encourage them—to inform student parents about the allowance. As a result, eligible student parents may be unaware of this option to request additional financial support to help them complete their degree.

GAO is making three recommendations to Education to correct its CCAMPIS persistence and graduation rate calculations and to encourage schools to inform students about the option to increase federal student aid to help pay for child care. Education disagreed with GAO's recommendations, but described plans to improve its performance calculations. GAO continues to believe additional actions are warranted.

Students who attend college while also raising children face many  competing challenges. Balancing the demands of going to class and  completing coursework, while caring for a family and working can make it  difficult for them to complete a degree. Further, finding high-quality child  care can be challenging, and in many states child care can cost more  than in-state tuition at a public university. In 2017, the average annual  cost for full-time, center-based infant care in the United States was over  $11,000, and in one state and the District of Columbia the cost was over  $20,000.

The federal government can provide support for student parents through  a variety of programs that subsidize child care costs. The U.S.  Department of Education’s (Education) Child Care Access Means Parents  in School (CCAMPIS) program specifically supports low-income student  parents by providing funds to colleges for child care services. Other  federal programs administered by the U.S. Department of Health and  Human Services (HHS) to help low-income families pay for child care  may also provide support to student parents. Federal student aid is also  available to help low-income students pay for college, and student  parents may be able to access additional federal student aid to help pay  for child care.

You asked us to provide information on undergraduate student parents.  This report examines the following questions: 1) What is known about the  characteristics and degree completion of undergraduate students with  dependent children? 2) What is known about the CCAMPIS grant  program and how reliable is Education’s reported outcome information?  3) What is known about student parent access to other key federal  programs that help low-income families pay for child care? 4) To what  extent do selected schools that serve student parents publicize  information about the option to increase federal student aid to help pay for  child care?

To determine what is known about the characteristics and degree  completion of undergraduate students with dependent children, we  analyzed data from the 2016 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study  (NPSAS) and the 2009 follow-up to the 2004 Beginning Postsecondary  Students Longitudinal Study (BPS), the most recent data available. To  determine what is known about the CCAMPIS grant program, we  reviewed relevant program information and federal laws and regulations,  and interviewed Education officials knowledgeable of the program. We  analyzed the annual performance data submitted by CCAMPIS grantees  for the 2016-2017 school year and reviewed Education’s calculations of  participant outcome measures it reported to Congress and assessed  them against federal internal control standards related to data quality. To  assess the reliability of these data sets, we reviewed agency  documentation about the data and interviewed Education officials knowledgeable about the data. We found the NPSAS and BPS data to be  sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We determined that CCAMPIS  performance data were sufficiently reliable for describing participant  characteristics and certain program characteristics such as child care  services funded and number of children on waiting lists.

To determine what is known about student parents’ access to other key  federal programs that assist low-income families with child care costs, we  focused on the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), Temporary  Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Head Start. We reviewed  relevant federal laws and regulations, agency guidance, and program  documents. We used a published 2018 HHS report to summarize  information on state CCDF policies that affect student parents.

To examine the extent to which selected schools publicize information  about the option to increase federal student aid to help pay for child care,  we collected dependent care allowance information from the websites of  the 62 schools that received their first year of CCAMPIS grant funding in  fiscal year 2017. These were the most recently awarded CCAMPIS grants  at the time of our review. We interviewed financial aid officials from 13 of  these schools to learn more about their practices for incorporating the  dependent care allowance into students’ financial aid calculations and  how they inform students about this option. We selected these 13 schools  to achieve a mix of schools that did and did not publicize the availability of  the dependent care allowance on their websites, as well as degree levels  (2-year and 4-year), and geographic diversity. We also considered the  cost of attendance for low-income students. The results from our website  reviews and school interviews are not generalizable. We reviewed  relevant federal laws and regulations and Education’s guidance on  federal student aid calculations, and we assessed Education’s practices  against federal internal control standards for communicating with external  parties. We also analyzed the characteristics of these 62 schools using  2016-2017 data from Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education  Data System (IPEDS), the most recent available. We assessed the  reliability of the IPEDS data by reviewing existing information about the  data and the system that produced them, and determined they were  reliable for our purposes. Further details on our objectives, scope, and  methodology are available in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2018 to August 2019 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Federal Programs that May Help College Student Parents Afford Child Care

We have previously reported that multiple federal programs provide or  support early learning and child care, but the CCAMPIS program is the  only one designed specifically to support the participation of low-income  parents in postsecondary education by funding child care services.  Education awards CCAMPIS competitive grants for up to 4 years to  colleges to either support existing campus-based child care programs or  establish new programs. Grant funds are primarily intended to help  students who receive or are eligible to receive federal Pell Grants, but  grantees may also serve low-income graduate students or low-income  foreign students. Education reported that CCAMPIS grantees received  about $15 million in fiscal year 2017 and about $33 million in fiscal year  2018.

HHS administers other key federally funded programs that subsidize child  care that may assist college students: the Child Care and Development  Fund (CCDF), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and  Head Start.

CCDF is the primary source of federal funding dedicated to helping  low-income families pay for child care. Parents must generally be  working or attending a job training or education program to receive  CCDF child care subsidies. States have flexibility to establish program  eligibility criteria and other priorities within the program’s broad federal  requirements. According to the HHS fiscal year 2020 budget  justification, the CCDF program provides about $8.2 billion in federal  funds per year for child care. In fiscal year 2017, the latest year for  which preliminary data were available, CCDF provided child care  assistance to about 1.3 million children each month.

TANF is a federal block grant to states that supports cash assistance  and a variety of other benefits and services to low-income families  with children. States may use their TANF funds to directly fund child  care, both for families receiving TANF cash assistance and for other  low-income families in the state. In 2017, 9 percent of federal TANF  funds used—or $1.5 billion—was spent directly for child care, while  states spent $2.3 billion in maintenance of effort funds directly on child  care, according to the HHS fiscal year 2020 budget justification. In  addition, states transferred $1.3 billion in federal TANF funds to CCDF  in fiscal year 2017.

Head Start grants are awarded directly to public and private nonprofit  and for-profit preschool and child care providers. The purpose of the  Head Start program is to promote the school readiness of low-income  children through the provision of educational, health, and other  services. Most Head Start participants are 3- and 4-year-old children,  but through the Early Head Start program, many infants and toddlers  also receive early education and child care services. In fiscal year  2017, Head Start provided about $9.6 billion in grants and other  services, and the program served over 1 million children.

Federal Student Aid and the Dependent Care Allowance

Under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, the  federal government offers students financial assistance to help pay for  their education. To be eligible for most federal student aid, a student  must demonstrate financial need. Students are eligible for federal need  based aid if the cost of attending a school is more than a family’s  expected financial contribution. A family’s expected contribution is an  approximation of the financial resources a family has available to help pay  for a student’s postsecondary education expenses.

The cost of attendance is calculated by each school using elements set  forth in federal law. In addition to expenses such as tuition, fees, and  room and board, the cost of attendance may include a dependent care  allowance for students who incur such costs—including for child care— while in school. Being eligible for a dependent care allowance increases  the student’s total cost of attendance, which could make the student  eligible for additional financial assistance.

Federal student aid is awarded primarily through grants and loans.

Grants: Federal Pell Grants are the primary federal grant aid  available to low-income undergraduate students with financial need.  The maximum allowable Pell Grant was $6,095 for the 2018-2019  school year. A student’s expected family contribution is a key  determinant of Pell Grant eligibility.

Federal Direct Loans: Education provides loans to undergraduate  and graduate students both with and without financial need.

The maximum amount an undergraduate student may borrow in federal  student loans is based on the student’s year in school and dependency  status (see table 1). Students are classified as either financially  dependent on their parents or financially independent. Students with  dependent children are categorized as independent students for the  purpose of calculating federal student aid. In addition, the total amount of  grants and scholarships plus the total amount of federal student loans a  student receives cannot exceed the total cost of attendance at his or her  school. As a result, some students may be eligible for a lower federal loan  amount than the maximum allowable amount, after grant and scholarship  aid are factored in. For example, if an independent, first-year student’s  total cost of attendance is $20,000, and the student receives $12,000 in  grant and scholarship aid, the student can take out no more than $8,000  in federal student loans, which is less than the first-year limit of $9,500.

Under federal law, schools participating in federal student aid programs  are required to disclose certain consumer information, including  information about college costs and the availability of federal student  aid. We have previously reported that schools are increasingly using  their websites to share consumer information, according to Education  officials. Schools must also post a tool on their websites to help  students estimate their cost of attendance based on their individual  circumstances.

Approximately 20 Percent of Undergraduate Students Were Parents and About Half Left School without a Degree

About 22 Percent of Undergraduate Students in 2015-2016 Were Raising Children and Many Were Single Women Working Full-Time

Student parents comprised about 20 percent of undergraduate students,  and many had characteristics that Education has reported can affect their  likelihood of staying enrolled in school and completing a degree, such as  being a single parent and working full time. In 2015-2016, an estimated  22 percent of undergraduate students (4.3 million of 19.5 million) were  parents, according to our analysis of Education’s nationally representative  NPSAS data. This percentage has remained close to one-quarter since  2003-2004, peaking at nearly 26 percent in 2011-2012. In addition, about  55 percent (2.4 million) were single parents and 44 percent (1.9 million)  were working full-time while enrolled (see fig. 1). About 23 percent  (nearly 1 million) were single parents working full-time while enrolled.

In addition, undergraduate student parents in 2015-2016 were older than  other students and mostly female, and a higher percentage were African- American compared to students without children.

The average age of undergraduate student parents was 33, compared  to 24 for all other undergraduates. A relatively small proportion of  undergraduate student parents—15 percent—was age 23 or younger.

Most student parents were female (71 percent).

An estimated 23 percent of undergraduate student parents were  African-American, compared to 13 percent of all other undergraduates  (see app. II for additional information on student parent  characteristics).

A Lower Percentage of Undergraduate Parents Completed Degrees Compared to Other Students

Education data indicate that a lower percentage of undergraduate student  parents earned a degree compared to students without children.  According to our analysis of the 2009 BPS data—a 6-year follow-up  survey of the cohort of first-time students in the 2003-2004 school year— an estimated 52 percent of undergraduate student parents left school  without a degree within 6 years, compared to 32 percent of students  without children (see fig. 2).

Compared to students without children, a higher percentage of  undergraduate student parents were enrolled in private for-profit schools,  programs of two years or less, and online programs, according to NPSAS  data for 2015-2016. An estimated 25 percent of undergraduate student  parents were enrolled in programs taught entirely online, compared to 7  percent of all other undergraduates (see fig. 3).

Undergraduate Parents Had Fewer Financial Resources for Their Education than Students without Children

Undergraduate student parents had fewer financial resources available to  fund their education than students without children, according to NPSAS  data for 2015-2016. An estimated 67 percent of undergraduate student  parents in 2015-2016 had an expected family contribution of zero,  compared to 31 percent of students without children. Student parents also  had an average expected family contribution of $9,180, compared to  $17,506 for students without children.

Accordingly, about half of student parents received a federal Pell Grant,  compared to 35 percent of all other undergraduates. In addition, a higher  percentage of student parents rely on federal student loans compared  with other students. Approximately 62 percent of undergraduate student  parents used federal student loans for their education, compared to 50  percent of students without children.

About half of student parents had childcare expenses, in addition to their  education and other living expenses. An estimated 45 percent reported  paying for child care in 2015-2016, paying an average of about $490 per  month (see fig. 4). An estimated 56 percent of student parents had a child  age 5 or younger. However, about 60 percent of undergraduate student  parents were enrolled in schools that did not offer on-campus childcare  for students.

CCAMPIS Grants Helped Some Low- Income Students Pay for Child Care, but Education Reported Unreliable Program Outcome Information

CCAMPIS Grants Helped about 3,300 Students at 85 Schools Pay for Child Care during the 2016- 2017 School Year

CCAMPIS grantees reported that about 3,320 student parents received  subsidized child care services for at least one academic term during the  2016-2017 school year, the most recent year for which performance data  were available. The 85 schools that submitted CCAMPIS program data  for this time period were about evenly split between 2-year (42) and 4- year (43) schools. The average amount awarded to each school for the  year was approximately $182,000. Grantees reported that there were  more children of CCAMPIS-eligible parents on waiting lists to receive  child care services (over 4,200 children) than the number of children  served by the 85 schools (about 4,000). Many of the children on waiting  lists were infants and toddlers (65 percent).

Most CCAMPIS participants in 2016-2017 were female and low-income  undergraduate students, according to data reported by grantees. Further,  most participants were undergraduates who either received or were  eligible to receive federal Pell Grants (85 percent). About 10 percent were  low-income graduate students. Almost 80 percent of CCAMPIS  participants were female. A majority of female CCAMPIS participants  attended 2-year schools (53 percent). In contrast, most male participants  were enrolled in 4-year schools (70 percent). Grantee reported data also  indicate that about half of CCAMPIS participants were single parents,  although most male students served by the grant were married (78  percent). Just under half of CCAMPIS participants were white, 25 percent  Hispanic or Latino, and 15 percent were Black or African-American.

Grantees reported using CCAMPIS funds to subsidize a variety of child  care services, either provided on-campus or in the community. Almost all  grantee schools (84) reported using CCAMPIS funds to subsidize full-time  child care, while 72 funded part-time child care (see fig. 5). Fewer schools  funded before- or after-care or care during the evening (18 schools) or  weekends (5 schools). Many grantees also reported funding parenting  classes (e.g., workshops on time management and family nutrition) and  meetings (e.g., student parent advisory board meetings). Grantees  funded other activities with their CCAMPIS grants, such as student  advising, free finals week child care, and child health screenings,  according to grantee data.

While some schools paid for the entire cost of child care for CCAMPIS  participants, most provided partial subsidies using a sliding fee scale.  Among the students that grantees reported as receiving a CCAMPIS- funded child care subsidy, over 75 percent had some out-of-pocket child  care expenses (2,091 of 2,754). The median amount students paid out- of-pocket each month was about $160, after receiving about $385 per  month in grant-funded subsidies.

CCAMPIS grants can help schools address the demand for child care that  their on-campus child care centers have not been able to accommodate.  For example, prior to receiving the CCAMPIS grant, the on-campus child  care center at one 2-year school on the West Coast served children age  2.5 to 5 years, according to school officials. With CCAMPIS grant funding,  officials said they were able to expand on-campus child care for school- age children (ages 5-13). They said the grant also allows the school to  offer drop-in child care when local elementary schools are closed. In  another case, to help meet demand for child care among student parents  that its on-campus child care center could not accommodate, an official  from a 4-year school in the Rocky Mountain region said the school has  established relationships with approximately 20 community-based child  care centers and used CCAMPIS funds to help students pay for child care  provided by these off-campus centers. These CCAMPIS grantees told us  they also used grant funds to offer students supportive services in  addition to subsidized child care. For example, the 2-year school on the  West Coast runs a family resource center that provides free baby clothes,  diapers, wipes, college textbooks, and school supplies for students and  their children. The 4-year school has used CCAMPIS funds to pay for a  graduate student to provide home visits for student parents who have  concerns about their children's development or behavior. These schools  also relied on funding from other sources to support student parents.  For example, officials from the 2-year school we spoke with said the  school uses local funds to host weekly faculty-led playgroups and state  funding to increase student parent access to food pantries and housing  assistance and to host evening parenting workshops led by a marriage  and family counselor.

Education Reported Unreliable Persistence and Graduation Rates among CCAMPIS Participants

In its budget justification to Congress, Education reports on the progress  that CCAMPIS grantees make toward meeting the program’s  performance goals; however, flaws in its calculations prevented  Education from reporting reliable results. Education reports information on  three performance measures for CCAMPIS participants: their persistence  in school, the federal cost for each persistent student, and their  graduation rate.

The persistence rate for students participating in the CCAMPIS program  is the percentage of program participants who receive child care services  that remain in postsecondary education at the end of the academic year,  according to Education’s published definition. To calculate this measure  Education’s explanation states that it includes any student that has  remained enrolled in school at the end of the school year,  transferred from a 2-year to a 4-year school during the school year, or graduated during the school year.

However, Education’s calculations did not produce results that align with  this definition of persistence; specifically, the agency’s calculations did not  identify students who remained enrolled until the end of the school year.  Education counted a student as persisting if the grantee reported the  student as enrolled and participating in the CCAMPIS program in either  the fall or the winter terms and did not consider whether students were  also enrolled in another term during the year. As a result, a student who  was enrolled and participating in CCAMPIS during the fall term and  withdrew from school during the spring term was counted as having  persisted in school. Further, while Education’s calculation included  students who graduated at some point during the school year, it did not  include students who transferred from a 2-year to a 4 year school.

Using Education’s definition, we recalculated the percentage of CCAMPIS  participants who persisted until the end of the 2016-2017 school year.  Specifically, we limited our analysis to students who grantees reported as  having participated in CCAMPIS during either the fall or winter term and  persisted to the spring term. While Education reported a persistence  rate of about 74 percent in its fiscal year 2020 budget justification to  Congress, our recalculation indicated that the persistence rate was an  estimated 82 percent.

The flaws in Education’s persistence rate calculation meant the agency  also reported unreliable results for the federal cost per CCAMPIS  participant who persisted in school. Given our recalculation of the  persistence rate for students enrolled in both 2-year and 4-year schools,  we calculated that the cost per CCAMPIS participating student who  persisted during the 2016-2017 school year was about $7,550. Education  reported this cost as $5,625 in its fiscal year 2020 budget justification to  Congress.

Education defines its graduation rate measure as the percentage of  CCAMPIS program participants enrolled in 2-year schools who graduate  from postsecondary education within 3 years of enrollment. According to  Education’s published definition of this measure, it is intended to be  consistent with Education’s standard graduation rate reported by all 2- year schools that receive federal student aid funds. Education does not  calculate or report the graduation rate for CCAMPIS participants enrolled  in 4-year schools.

However, Education’s calculations did not produce results that aligned  with its published graduation rate definition. To correctly calculate the  graduation rate, based on its definition, Education would need to track the  enrollment of a cohort of CCAMPIS participating students in 2-year  schools who started school in the same year. This would allow Education  to follow these students over 3 years to identify how many of them  graduated during this time period. Instead, Education included in its  calculation students that participated in CCAMPIS at any point during a 3- year period regardless of when they first enrolled in school. Education  does not currently collect data from CCAMPIS grantees that indicate  when students first enrolled in school, which it would need to accurately  calculate the percentage of CCAMPIS program participants enrolled in 2- year schools who graduate within 3 years of enrollment. Education  officials said that they were concerned that collecting such student  enrollment information could be overly burdensome for grantees.

Education officials acknowledged that they had not accurately defined this  performance measure in the fiscal year 2020 budget justification to  Congress. Specifically, Education officials said that although the  published definition of the CCAMPIS graduation rate states it is consistent  with the agency’s standard graduation rate measure, program officials  actually calculate something different. Officials said that because they do  not collect data on when students first enroll in school, they calculated the  percent of CCAMPIS participants who graduated within 3 years of  receiving CCAMPIS subsidies instead. While this alternative could be  used as a CCAMPIS outcome measure, Education’s calculations did not  align with this definition because they did not organize students into  cohorts based on when they first started receiving CCAMPIS subsidies.  Education has the data to do this, but would need to revise its  calculations. Without either collecting the student enrollment data needed  to calculate a standard 3-year graduation rate or accurately defining and  calculating a different metric, Education is unable to report reliable college  completion results for CCAMPIS participants.

Having accurate performance measures is critical to assessing the  effectiveness of the CCAMPIS program. Federal standards for internal  controls state that management should ensure that measurements  achieve the appropriate level of precision and accuracy for their reporting  purposes. These federal standards also state that when communicating  with external parties, managers should share quality information to help  the entity achieve its objectives. However, Education has not calculated  a persistence rate or graduation rate that accurately reflects the  CCAMPIS program’s performance measures, as the agency has publicly  defined them. As a result, the agency is unable to give a reliable  accounting of CCAMPIS performance in its budget justification to  Congress. Reporting unreliable performance information about the  CCAMPIS program affects Education’s ability to manage the program and  Congress’ ability to make informed funding and program decisions.

Little Is Known about the Extent to Which Students Access Other Key Federal Programs that Help Low-Income Families Pay for Child Care

College students may benefit from other key federal programs that fund  child care services for low-income families—CCDF, TANF, and Head  Start—but little is known about the extent to which they benefit.

Child Care and Development Fund: HHS does not track how many  families use CCDF child care subsidies specifically to pursue  postsecondary education, as this is an optional program activity,  according to HHS officials. HHS tracks and reports on child care  subsidy use for training and education as a broader category. For fiscal  year 2016, in about 6 percent of families receiving child care subsidies a  parent was enrolled in training or education, and in an additional 7  percent of families a parent was enrolled in training or education while  also employed, according to state reported data. These data also show  that states differed in the extent to which parents pursuing training or  education received such subsidies. For example, three states provided  CCDF subsidies during an average month in 2016 to only a small number  of families where a parent was not employed while pursuing education or  training (less than one-half of one percent). In contrast, two states  provided CCDF subsidies to about 20 percent of families where a parent  was pursuing education or training while not employed.

Some states have established policies that restrict postsecondary  students’ access to CCDF funds, according to our analysis of an HHS  report containing information on key state CCDF policies as of 2017.  Specifically, four states have policies that limit students who are pursuing  postsecondary education from receiving child care subsidies. Nine  additional states do not allow access to child care subsidies for full-time  students, unless they also meet work requirements. For example,  Arizona, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Washington require full-time  students to work 20 hours each week in addition to attending school.

States have implemented other policies that affect CCDF subsidy access  for postsecondary students.

Program length: Eight states limit the length of time students may  receive child care subsidies for enrollment in a postsecondary  program. For example, Alabama, Kansas, New Hampshire, and  Wisconsin limit postsecondary programs to 24 months.

Program type: Ten states place restrictions on the type or nature of  the postsecondary program students may pursue. For example, states  may limit approved programs to vocational programs. Almost all  states exclude graduate level programs.

Academic Achievement: Four states have policies related to the  minimum grade point average students must maintain to receive child  care subsidies. For example, Illinois requires that students that do not  work 20 hours per week maintain a 2.5 average.

In 2016, HHS issued an informational memorandum with examples of  policies and practices that could help states support parents who need  child care assistance to participate in education programs. Such  strategies included limiting the number of hours students were required to  work and ensuring student parents are aware of child care services.  See the text box for an example of how one school reported it is using  CCDF funds to assist student parents.

Example of using the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)   to subsidize child care for student parents  New York state uses CCDF funds to offer child care subsidies to  students enrolled in its State University of New York (SUNY) and City  University of New York (CUNY) schools. These colleges partner with  nonprofit child care providers and receive CCDF funds to provide child  care subsidies to income-eligible students. Schools receive additional  state funds to help pay for child care operating costs, such as staff  salaries, supplies, and meals for children.

A school official from one of the state’s community colleges told GAO  that CCDF subsidizes care during time students are in class. School  officials submit students’ class schedules to the state when applying  for benefits on students’ behalf. Students pay out of pocket for any  time they elect to enroll their children in care that is in addition to  scheduled class time.

However, eligible families may not receive a CCDF child care subsidy, as  states often do not have sufficient funds to serve all eligible families.  HHS officials said that states must prioritize three types of eligible  families: families with very low incomes, families with children with special  needs, and families who are experiencing homelessness.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Student parents may also  be eligible to receive child care subsidies from their state’s TANF  program, but it is unclear how many students benefit from these  subsidies. HHS officials said that although they track the amount of  TANF funds states use to help families pay for child care, HHS does not  collect information that would allow it to identify how many families are  using child care to pursue postsecondary education. According to  NPSAS data, an estimated 4 percent of undergraduate student parents  reported that a member of their household received TANF assistance  during either 2013 or 2014. For an example of how one school reported  it is using TANF funds to assist student parents, see the text box.

Example of using Temporary Assistance for Needy Families  (TANF) to subsidize child care for student parents  A TANF-funded program in Arkansas called the Career Pathways  Initiative assists student parents with child care costs. This program  also offers financial assistance for school-related expenses and a  number of other supportive services.

To access child care assistance from the Career Pathways Initiative,  student parents must have an income at or below 250 percent of the  poverty level or receive another state service, such as Medicaid.  According to an official from one community college in the state, in  order to receive a child care subsidy at that school, students must also  work at least one hour per week.

Research on the Career Pathways Initiative found that, of the nearly  30,000 low-income participants enrolled in Arkansas community  colleges between 2006 and 2013, more than 52 percent graduated  with a degree or certificate. This is more than double the 24 percent  completion rate of all Arkansas community college students who did  not participate in the program.

Metis Associates and the Arkansas Research Center, “College Counts Evidence of Impact: A  Research Analysis of the Arkansas Career Pathways Initiative.” January 2018.

Head Start: Student parents may also enroll their children in Head Start  programs, and some colleges have received Head Start grants or  partnered with local Head Start programs to connect eligible student  parents with services. HHS officials said they do not, however, collect  information from Head Start grantees to identify how many grantees  partner with colleges or how many Head Start grantees themselves are  colleges. They also said they cannot quantify the number of student  parents with children enrolled in Head Start programs because that  information is not collected by the Office of Head Start, as this is not a  primary purpose of the program. At many Head Start programs— particularly those located in early learning or child care centers—services  are only available on a part day or part week basis, which may not align  with a student’s school or work schedules. See the text box for an  example of how one school reported it is supporting its student parents  with Head Start funds.

Example of using Head Start to subsidize child care for student  parents  A community college district in the Northwest that comprises two  campuses, has received a Head Start grant for approximately the past  25 years. According to school officials, in 2018, the district managed 9  Head Start and Early Head Start centers located across the county,  including centers on each of the district’s community college  campuses.

According to school officials, the district used Head Start funding to  offer family well-being services for student parents, including helping  families find housing, providing referrals for mental health counseling,  and providing bus passes. In addition, the program connected families  with medical and dental services. For the 2017-2018 school year, the  district reported that over 88 percent of children enrolled in its Head  Start centers were up-to-date on dental and medical screenings.

Websites at Many Selected Schools Did Not Publicize Information about the Option to Increase Federal Student Aid to Pay for Child Care

Students May Receive Additional Federal Student Aid to Help Pay for Child Care in Certain Circumstances

In certain circumstances, a student parent may be eligible to receive  additional federal student aid to help pay for child care. Students with  dependent children in paid child care are allowed to request a dependent  care allowance as part of their financial aid calculation, but whether it  provides them with additional financial aid depends largely on other  school costs. For example, at higher-cost schools, these students may  already be eligible for the maximum amount of federal student loans  before adding this allowance. In these situations, requesting a  dependent care allowance would not increase the amount of federal  student loans available to the student because they have already reached  the maximum. At lower-cost schools, such as community colleges, costs  may be low enough to allow student parents to access additional federal  student loans by adding a dependent care allowance. According to our  analysis of 2016 NPSAS data, an estimated 2.6 million student parents  nationwide were eligible for a lower federal loan amount than the  maximum allowable loan amount, so that adding a dependent care  allowance might make them eligible for a higher federal loan amount.

Figure 6 illustrates how adding a dependent care allowance can affect a  student’s federal student loan amount at a school with a relatively low  cost of attendance. In this example, adding a $3,000 dependent care  allowance to a student’s cost of attendance increases the amount of federal student loans the student can borrow without exceeding the  maximum amount available ($9,500 for a first-year, independent  undergraduate student). At a higher-cost school, however, a student may  already be eligible for the maximum possible loan amount, so adding a  dependent care allowance would not affect how much the student could  take out in federal student loans.

Officials from seven of the 13 schools we interviewed said that adding a  dependent care allowance would more likely increase the amount of  federal student loans a student can borrow, rather than increase a  student’s access to grant or scholarship aid. However, school officials  we interviewed who recently added dependent care allowances to  students’ financial aid calculations said that students with a dependent  care allowance may, in some cases, receive additional grants from the  state or school.

Officials at most of the 13 schools we contacted said they receive  relatively few requests for a dependent care allowance, generally ranging  from zero to 47 in 1 year. Officials at the eight schools that had included  this allowance in recent years reported different ways of determining the  amount of the allowance. At two of these schools, officials said they allot  a fixed amount for the dependent care allowance. Officials at the other six  schools said allowance amounts are flexible and based on students’  documented child care expenses, and can vary depending on the number  of children in child care.

Fixed. One school in the Northwest surveys local child care providers  annually to determine the community standard rate each year and  bases its dependent care allowance amount on the average market  value in the area, according to a school official. This rate is two tiered.  The first tier is for children ages 0-5 and is $552 per month and the  second is for children ages 6-12, with a monthly allowance of $276. At  a school in the Midwest, an official said that the school provides a  fixed allowance amount to all students who indicate they have a  dependent child on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid  (FAFSA). The allowance amount is based on the student’s enrollment  status (e.g., $900 per school year for a student enrolled full-time). The  school included a dependent care allowance for 30 percent of  students who received financial aid in 2017-2018, according to a  school official.

Flexible. At one school in the South, students can request a  dependent care allowance based on their actual child care expenses,  according to a school official. Financial aid officials at the school use  their judgment to determine if the request is reasonable for the  community and may request documentation for requests exceeding  $2,500 per semester. For example, students with more than one child  may spend more than $2,500 per semester on child care. An official at another school in the West said it does not set limits for the  allowance, but financial aid counselors use their judgment to counsel  students if the requested amount looks too high for the student’s  circumstances. The average allowance amount at this school is  between $600 and $1,000 per month.

Not all students may want to increase their student loans to finance their  child care costs while in school, but access to additional federal student  loans could be a useful option for those students who need it. We  previously reported that officials at a national association of community  colleges said that low-income students often use federal loans to help  them pay for basic living expenses. These loans can be a valuable  resource for some students who need additional funds to support  themselves while in college, but some school officials cautioned that  loans may not be the best choice for all students, and may worsen the  financial position of already vulnerable students. However, two recent  studies of 2-year students examined how federal financial aid improved  students’ college outcomes. One study found that federal financial aid  helped reduce the drop-out risk for some students, while another study  found that students who received federal student loans had completed  more college credits and earned higher grades than those who did not.

Selected Schools Generally Did Not Provide Information on their Websites as of December 2018 about the Option to Increase Federal Student Aid to Help Pay for Child Care

About two-thirds of the college websites we reviewed (40 of 62) did not  include information on their websites about the option to include a  dependent care allowance in financial aid calculations. While schools are  required to post certain college cost information on their websites and  inform students about the availability of financial aid, they are not required  to inform students about the dependent care allowance.

At 29 of these 40 schools, the average net price for a low-income student  is low enough that some students may qualify for additional loan amounts  with the addition of a dependent care allowance. We reviewed the  websites of schools that were CCAMPIS grant recipients. As CCAMPIS  grant recipients, these schools serve students with a demonstrated need  for child care services, and have shown an interest in helping students  with their child care needs. Given that most of these schools do not  provide information online about the option to include a dependent care  allowance, other schools without the same focus on student parents may  be even less likely to make information about this option available. If  schools are not consistently informing students about the option to access  additional federal student aid, student parents who could benefit may not  be aware the option exists, and therefore not apply for additional aid that  could help them pay for child care.

Among the 22 schools that did provide information about the dependent  care allowance on their websites, we found that the details they provided  varied. They ranged from a general statement on the existence of the  allowance to explicit instructions on how to request it, and, in some cases,  the specific dependent care allowance amounts the school would provide.

Three of the 22 schools that discussed the dependent care allowance on  their websites did not post any instructions on how to add the allowance  to financial aid calculations, and the instructions posted on the other 19  school websites varied. Such instructions included directing students to  contact the financial aid office and submitting a financial aid award  appeal.

Among the 13 schools at which we conducted interviews, six schools  included information about the dependent care allowance on their  websites and seven did not. Officials at two schools that publicized the  allowance on their websites said that the schools also took other steps to  inform current students about the dependent care allowance. For  example, one school official said the school references the allowance in  emails to students about the on-campus child care center. Officials at the  other schools—including the seven schools that did not include  information on their websites—said that they did not use any other  method to inform current students about the dependent care allowance.  Further, none of the 13 schools made information publicly available to  prospective students using anything other than the schools’ website,  according to school officials. Additionally, although not generalizable,  there was a relationship between those schools that used their websites  to inform student parents about the option to include a dependent care  allowance and whether they had provided this allowance in recent years.  All six schools that provided dependent care allowance information online  also reported including this allowance in the financial aid calculations of  some students in recent years. Of the seven schools that did not include  dependent care information online, just two of them reported that they  had provided any dependent care allowances in recent years.

Education uses its Federal Student Aid (FSA) Handbook—a  comprehensive annual guide to regulatory and administrative  requirements for federal student aid programs—to instruct school  financial aid officials on how to incorporate the dependent care allowance  in a student’s financial aid calculations. However, the handbook does not  encourage schools to make information readily available to students via  school websites about the option to increase federal student aid to help  pay for child care or what steps they need to take to request it. Posting  this information on school websites would make it more easily accessible  to students, including prospective students who may not have access to  publications located on campus. Education has used its handbook to  encourage schools to adopt other suggested practices, such as informing  students about how to save money on textbooks by either renting them or  purchasing used copies. Moreover, Education officials said that they  could include language in the handbook encouraging schools, as a best  practice, to include information about the dependent care allowance on  school websites along with other college cost information. Federal  standards for internal control state that management should consider the  availability of information and the extent to which information is readily  available to the intended audience. Because the dependent care  allowance can affect how much financial aid a student can access,  making this information accessible on school websites would help ensure  enrolled and prospective students are aware of all of their financial aid  options.

Student parents face many obstacles to completing college, including  paying for child care, and are less likely to complete school than students  without children. The CCAMPIS program offers financial assistance that  can provide key support to help student parents complete college.  However, because Education is not accurately calculating its CCAMPIS  performance measures, the agency is not reporting reliable information  on program outcomes. As a result, it is difficult for Education and  Congress to evaluate the effectiveness of the program and make  informed funding and program decisions.

Federal student aid can be an important resource available to help  student parents—who have fewer financial resources than other  students—pay for child care while enrolled in school, but only if students  are aware of the option to increase aid to help cover child care costs.  Without information made widely available on school websites, student  parents who could benefit may not know they can obtain additional aid.  Moreover, the challenges this population faces in completing college  make it especially important that they know about the types of assistance  available to them. This information is particularly important for prospective  students as they consider costs among different schools. Encouragement  from Education for schools to provide information about the dependent  care allowance on their websites could offer student parents more  complete information about the financial aid resources available to them  and how to request additional aid that could ultimately help them remain  in school and graduate.

We are making the following three recommendations to Education.

The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education should correctly  calculate its CCAMPIS program persistence rate and cost per  persisting student measures. (Recommendation 1)

The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education should either  collect the CCAMPIS participant enrollment data needed to calculate  a standard 3-year graduation rate or accurately define and calculate a  different college completion measure. (Recommendation 2)

The Chief Operating Officer of Federal Student Aid should encourage  schools—through appropriate means, such as the FSA Handbook—to  inform students via school websites about the availability of the  dependent care allowance and how to request the allowance.  (Recommendation 3)

We provided a draft of this report to HHS and Education for review and  comment. HHS provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate. Education provided written comments, which are reproduced  in appendix III.

In its comments, Education stated that the report inaccurately  characterizes the CCAMPIS performance data as unreliable and  disagreed with the recommendation to correctly calculate its CCAMPIS  persistence rate and cost per persistent student measures  (recommendation 1). Regarding this first recommendation, Education  acknowledged one error in its persistence rate calculation that affected  the accuracy of both the persistence rate and cost per persistent student  measures that it reported in its fiscal year 2020 budget justification to  Congress. The agency noted that it plans to correct this error in its fiscal  year 2021 budget justification. In addition, Education stated that it would  explore a different model for calculating the persistence rate. While we  support Education’s plans to correct the error it acknowledged and  explore another model for calculating the persistence rate, Education’s  persistence rate calculation has additional errors that the agency needs to  correct to accurately calculate the CCAMPIS program’s persistence rate.  For example, as we stated in the report, Education’s calculations did not  include students who transferred, which the agency has reported should  be included in its persistence rate measure. Moreover, we identified other  technical errors in the numerator and denominator of Education’s  formulas. For example, when calculating the persistence rate for  CCAMPIS participants, Education counted students who declined to  participate in the CCAMPIS program. We continue to believe that it is  important for Education to report reliable program information to oversee  and monitor the program and to provide accurate information to  Congress. To do this, Education needs to take additional action to  address all of the errors in its persistence calculations.

Education disagreed with the recommendation to collect the CCAMPIS  participant enrollment data needed to calculate a standard 3-year  graduation rate or accurately define and calculate a different college  completion measure (recommendation 2). Education stated that it could  address our concerns with a modification to the description of the  measure published in the agency’s budget justification. Specifically,  Education said it plans to clarify that, for graduation rate data published  for fiscal year 2020 and prior years, the term “within 3 years of  enrollment” means within 3 years of enrolling in the CCAMPIS program.  However, as we stated in the report, Education’s calculations do not align  with this measure either. As for future years, the agency stated that it will  explore transitioning to a new model of tracking CCAMPIS students over  time, which, as described, would be consistent with Education’s standard  graduation rate. However, Education noted that it must carefully balance  the need to collect more informative and reliable data from grantees with  the need to avoid adding unnecessary reporting burdens. We recognize  that collecting the enrollment data needed to calculate the standard  graduation rate could place a burden on grantee schools. Our  recommendation therefore gives Education the option to define a different  college completion measure and calculate it correctly. We continue to  believe that Education needs to take steps to either collect the necessary  enrollment data to calculate a standard 3-year graduation rate or correctly  calculate a modified college completion measure.

Education disagreed with the recommendation to encourage schools— through appropriate means, such as the FSA Handbook—to inform  students via school websites about the availability of the dependent care  allowance and how to request the allowance (recommendation 3).  Education stated that it believes it would be inappropriate to  indiscriminately encourage all schools to encourage student parents to  borrow additional loans without considering a student’s individual financial  circumstances. We did not suggest that schools should encourage all  student parents to borrow additional loans to pay for child care. Instead,  we recommended that Education encourage schools to make students  aware of this potential option—which federal law makes available to  students—to allow them to make informed financial decisions based on  their personal circumstances. We made this recommendation because  we found that schools were not consistently sharing information with  students about the dependent care allowance or how to request one. We  further recognized in the report that not all students may want to increase  their student loans to finance their child care costs while in school;  however, access to additional federal student loans could be a useful  option for those students who may need it, so we believe students should  be aware of this potential option.

Education also stated that it would be inappropriate for the agency to  require schools to take actions that could erode their student loan  repayment and default rates. We did not recommend that Education  require schools to take any action; rather, we recommended that  Education encourage schools to inform students about a potentially  available federal resource. In addition, Education did not provide any  evidence that being aware of or using the dependent care allowance  would negatively affect student loan repayment or default rates. Further,  access to additional financial resources can help some students succeed  in school if it allows them to work less and study more. For example, as  cited in the report, recent research suggests that additional federal  financial aid, including student loans, can lead to improved academic  outcomes for some students.

Education also expressed concerns about students borrowing more and  noted there are numerous federal, state, local, and private options that  offer low-income students affordable or no-cost child care. Education  noted that the federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)  provides significant resources for student parents. However, as we noted  in the report, some states either fund very few families pursuing education  or training or have implemented policies that restrict access to CCDF  subsidies for college students. Education also noted that many colleges,  as well as countless faith-based organizations offer affordable or no-cost  child care to low-income students. However, we found that nearly half of  student parents reported paying for child care, with costs averaging about  $490 per month. Moreover, even colleges that received a CCAMPIS grant  had significant waiting lists for assistance and reported more children on  waiting lists for CCAMPIS assistance than children receiving subsidized  care from the CCAMPIS program.

Finally, Education noted that the Federal Student Aid Handbook already  contains information about the dependent care allowance and its  inclusion in students’ financial aid calculations. While the handbook does  include information to help school financial aid administrators implement a  dependent care allowance appropriately, it is not a resource directed at  student parents. For this reason, we recommended that Education  encourage schools to take steps to inform students about the dependent  care allowance and how to request one. We continue to believe that it is  important for Education to encourage schools to inform student parents  about the availability of the dependent care allowance and how to request  it.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Health  and Human Services, the Secretary of Education, appropriate  congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the  report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines 1) What is known about the characteristics and  degree completion of undergraduate students with dependent children?  2) What is known about the Child Care Access Means Parents in School  grant program and how reliable is Education’s reported outcome  information? 3) What is known about student parent access to other key  federal programs that help low-income families pay for child care? 4) To  what extent do selected schools that serve student parents publicize  information about the option to increase federal student aid to help pay for  child care? This appendix provides details of the data sources used to  answer these questions, the analysis we conducted, and any limitations  to our analysis.

Student Parent Characteristics and Degree Completion  To examine the characteristics and degree completion of undergraduate  student parents, we analyzed data from the Department of Education’s  (Education) National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) from the  2015-2016 school year, the most recent year available. NPSAS data  contain nationally representative, detailed demographic and financial aid  data for college students enrolled in postsecondary education programs.  These data come from institutional records, government databases, and  interviews with students. We also analyzed Beginning Postsecondary  Students Longitudinal Study (BPS) data from 2008-2009. BPS tracks  students over a 6-year period and collects both survey and transcript  data. The most recently completed BPS cohort first enrolled in  postsecondary education in the 2003-2004 school year. We assessed the  reliability of the NPSAS and BPS data by reviewing existing information  about the data and the system that produced them. We also interviewed  agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined these  data to be reliable for our purposes.

Because the NPSAS and BPS data are based on probability samples,  estimates are calculated using the appropriate sample weights provided,  which reflect the sample design. Unless otherwise noted, all percentage  estimates from the NPSAS data analysis have 95 percent confidence  intervals within plus or minus 3.8 percentage points of the percent  estimate, and all number estimates from the NPSAS data analysis have  95 percent confidence intervals within plus or minus 9 percent of the  estimate. Similarly, all percentage estimates from the BPS data analysis  have 95 percent confidence intervals within plus or minus 3.7 percentage  points of the percent estimate. We compared 95 percent confidence  intervals for both NPSAS and BPS data to identify statistically significant  differences between specific estimates and the comparison groups.

The information collected from the interview portions of the NPSAS and  BPS studies, such as the variables measuring whether students have  children in paid child care and a student’s monthly child care costs, is  self-reported and is not based entirely on federal determinations or cross- verified with outside sources. Students’ monthly child care costs may be  prone to more error than simpler yes/no questions.

Child Care Access Means Parents in School Grant Program  To determine what is known about the Child Care Access Means Parents  in School (CCAMPIS) grant program, we reviewed relevant program  information and federal laws and regulations, and interviewed Education  officials knowledgeable of the program. To provide illustrative examples  of how selected colleges and universities use CCAMPIS grant funding to  help students pay for child care, we interviewed officials from two schools.  We selected these two schools based on expert and agency  recommendations and research. We also considered level of degree  program (2-year and 4-year) and geographic diversity. We also  conducted descriptive analysis of the performance data that CCAMPIS  grantees reported to Education for the 2016-2017 school year, the most  recently available performance data at the time of our review. Education  provided us with performance information from the 85 colleges and  universities that received their first year of grant funding in fiscal years  2013 and 2014. At the time of our review, Education had not yet collected  performance data for the 2017-2018 school year, which would be the first  project year for the 62 schools that were awarded CCAMPIS grants in  fiscal year 2017.

Education collects annual performance information from CCAMPIS  grantees using annual performance reports. Grantees report both  summary information for all participating students as well as detailed  information—listed separately—for each participating student. Education  officials said that they do not use the summarized participant data for  performance calculations because of inconsistencies they identified in  grantees’ reported data. Instead, Education uses the detailed information  grantees provide for each student. This student-level data includes  student demographic information, the number of children served,  CCAMPIS child care subsidies received, and child care fees paid.  Grantees also report each student’s CCAMPIS participation and  academic enrollment during four academic terms (fall, winter, spring, and  summer).

To assess the reliability of the CCAMPIS performance data, we reviewed  related program documentation, interviewed knowledgeable agency  officials, and conducted electronic data testing for missing data, outliers,  and logical errors. When we reviewed the student-level data, we identified  instances of incomplete and inconsistent data that affected which  students could be identified as participating in the CCAMPIS program. To  address these concerns, we excluded from our analysis students that  grantees reported as having 1) declined to participate in CCAMPIS for  each of the four academic terms, 2) no enrollment information for any of  the four academic terms, and 3) an enrollment code not included in  Education’s report instructions. We discussed our methodology for  identifying program participants with Education officials, who agreed with  our approach. We also omitted from our analysis any student for whom  grantees reported duplicate information. After these corrections, we  determined that CCAMPIS student-level performance data were  sufficiently reliable for the purpose of describing participant  characteristics. We determined that selected summary variables  reported elsewhere in grantees’ performance reports were similarly  reliable for the purpose of describing child care services funded and  number of children on waiting lists.

We also examined Education’s calculations underlying the CCAMPIS  program’s performance measures that the agency reported in its fiscal  year 2020 budget justification to Congress and assessed them against  federal internal control standards related to data quality. Because of the  flaws we identified in Education’s calculations, we developed our own  calculations of Education’s performance measures using the 2016-2017  CCAMPIS program performance data.

Student Parents Access to Other Key Federal Child Care Programs  To examine student parents’ access to other key federal programs that  assist low-income families with child care costs, we focused on the Child  Care and Development Fund (CCDF), Temporary Assistance for Needy  Families (TANF), and Head Start and reviewed relevant federal laws and  regulations, agency guidance, and program documents. To describe the  extent to which states have established CCDF program policies that limit  postsecondary students’ access to child care subsidies, we summarized  information published in the CCDF Policies Database Book of Tables:  Key Cross-State Variations in CCDF Policies as of October 1, 2017. To  provide illustrative examples of how selected schools use these programs  to help college students pay for child care, we interviewed school officials  from three colleges and universities that also received CCAMPIS grants.  We selected schools based on expert and agency recommendations and  research. We also considered level of degree program (2-year and 4- year) and geographic diversity.

To assess the extent to which selected schools are publicizing  information about the option to increase federal student aid to help pay for  child care, we reviewed the websites of the 62 schools that first received  a CCAMPIS grant in fiscal year 2017. These were the most recently  awarded CCAMPIS grants at the time of our review. In order to review  comparable information across all schools, we developed a standardized  data collection instrument that we used to examine the availability of  information on the option to include a dependent care allowance. We  developed the instrument after reviewing the websites of 22 schools and  interviewing officials from four schools to learn more about their practices  for informing students about the dependent care allowance. We selected  these four schools because they did not include information about the  dependent care allowance on their websites, students attending these  schools borrowed federal student loans, and at least one-third of enrolled  students were age 25 or older. We conducted our review from October  through December 2018. One analyst recorded information in the data  collection instrument and another analyst checked and verified it. We  collected complete information for all 62 schools and analyzed the  information across schools. We did not, as a part of our review of school  websites, assess the schools for compliance with any laws or regulations.  Instead, this review was intended to understand what information is made  available to students on school websites.

To better understand these 62 schools and their practices, we examined  additional federal data and interviewed financial aid officials from 13 of  the 62 schools to obtain additional information about school practices for  incorporating the dependent care allowance into students’ financial aid  calculations. The results from our website reviews and school interviews  are not generalizable. We selected these schools to achieve a mix of  schools that did and did not publicize the availability of the dependent  care allowance on their websites, as well as degree levels (2-year and 4- year), and geographic diversity. We also considered the cost of  attendance for the average low-income student, after grant or scholarship  aid. We also analyzed the characteristics of all 62 schools using 2016-2017 data, the latest available, from Education’s Integrated  Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), and examined the  characteristics in the context of our website analysis. We also interviewed  federal officials from Education about the information the agency provides  to schools about the dependent care allowance. We assessed the  reliability of the IPEDS data by reviewing existing information about the  data and the system that produced them, and determined they were  reliable for our purposes. We assessed Education’s practices against  federal internal control standards for communicating with external parties.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2018 to August 2019 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Estimated Percentages of Selected Demographics for Student Parents and All Other Undergraduate Students, 2015-2016

Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Michelle St. Pierre (Assistant  Director), Karissa Robie (Analyst-in-Charge), Jennifer Cook, and Marissa  Jones Friedman made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to  this report were, Deborah Bland, Kevin Daly, Nisha Hazra, Gina Hoover,  Michael Kniss, Sheila R. McCoy, Jean McSween, Brittni Milam, John  Mingus, Jessica Orr, Joshua Paul, Benjamin Sinoff, and Adam Wendel.

About 1 in 5 undergraduates were raising children in 2015-16, according to the Education Department. Child care costs can make it harder for them to graduate. An Education program helps students with low incomes pay for child care.

Education is not accurately calculating program outcomes, such as the graduation rate.

Student parents may be eligible for bigger loans to cover child care but about two-thirds of the college websites we reviewed did not mention this.

We recommended that Education accurately calculate program results and encourage schools to publicize potential loan increases to cover child care.