Content uploaded by Angelique Gabrielle Day
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Angelique Gabrielle Day on Sep 26, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjpp20
Download by: [4.34.235.50] Date: 18 May 2017, At: 06:37
Journal of Policy Practice
ISSN: 1558-8742 (Print) 1558-8750 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjpp20
Increasing College Access and Retention Rates of
Youth in Foster Care: An Analysis of the Impact of
22 State Tuition Waiver Programs
Liliana Hernandez, Angelique Day & Michael Henson
To cite this article: Liliana Hernandez, Angelique Day & Michael Henson (2017): Increasing
College Access and Retention Rates of Youth in Foster Care: An Analysis of the Impact of 22 State
Tuition Waiver Programs, Journal of Policy Practice, DOI: 10.1080/15588742.2017.1311819
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15588742.2017.1311819
Published online: 26 Apr 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Increasing College Access and Retention Rates of Youth in
Foster Care: An Analysis of the Impact of 22 State Tuition
Waiver Programs
Liliana Hernandez
a
, Angelique Day
b
, and Michael Henson
c
a
The Virginia Family and Children’s Trust Fund, Arlington, Virginia, USA;
b
University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington, USA;
c
Department of Anthropology and Social Work, Wayne State University,
Detroit, Michigan, USA
ABSTRACT
Youth in foster care face educational disparities in terms of college
access, retention, and graduation. To address this, 22 states have
implemented tuition waiver programs targeting current and for-
mer foster youth. A comparative analysis was conducted of all 22
programs implemented since 2014. Similarities include student
eligibility based on youth’s age upon foster care entry, university
admission and time in care requirements. Differences include type
of expenses covered, time limits on use, program oversight, and
funding availability. No differences were found based on political
party control, gubernatorial power, and state population composi-
tion. Recommendations for policy and practice reform are offered.
KEYWORDS
College access; foster care;
policy analysis;
postsecondary education;
state tuition waivers
Introduction
More first-generation, low-income students and students of color, including
foster care youth, are enrolling in college than ever before (Venezia & Jaeger,
2013). However, foster care youth continue to enroll, complete credits, and
graduate at lower rates than their low-income peers (Day, Dworsky,
Damashek, & Fogarty, 2011; Day, Dworsky, & Feng, 2013;Haveman&
Smeeding, 2006). A Missouri study found 70% of foster youth between the
ages of 15 and 19 have college aspirations (McMillen, Auslander, Elze, White,
&Thompson,2003). In this respect, they are like their non-foster care peers
(Venezia & Jaeger, 2013); however, according to Courtney (2009), only 18% ever
enroll in college and of those, only between 3% and 9% earn a bachelor’s degree
(Cohen, 2014; Pecora et al., 2006). One study found that young people from
foster care were significantly more likely to drop out before the end of their first
year of college and prior to degree completion than their non-foster care peers
(Day et al., 2011). A national study (GAO, 2016) of federal financial aid data of
72,000 foster care youth found that 43% who received federal student aid in the
2013–14 academic year attended public, two-year colleges as compared to 29%
CONTACT Liliana Hernandez, mslhernandez@gmail.com Trustee Member, The Virginia Family and Children’s
Trust Fund, 1830 Columbia Pike, Apt 202, Arlington, VA 22204, USA.
JOURNAL OF POLICY PRACTICE
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15588742.2017.1311819
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
of other undergraduates receiving federal student aid. They also attended two-
year colleges at a higher rate than other low-income youth (GAO, 2016). Foster
youth pursued an associate’s degree to a greater extent (53%) than other students
(48%), and were less likely to pursue a bachelor’s degree (38% vs. 48% of non-
foster youth) (GAO, 2016). The GAO (2016) study found that 72% of foster care
youth had no degree or certificate within six years of first entering college,
compared to 57% of non-foster care low-income students and 49% of all
students. One study found only 40% (n= 574) of foster care youth reported
completing at least one year of college, compared to an estimated 68% of youth
in the general population (Courtney, Lee, & Perez, 2011). In a 2010 study by
researchers at the University of Chicago, only 6% of young people (N= 602)
formerly in foster care reported earning a two- or four-year degree by age 24
(Courtney, Dworsky, Lee, & Rapp, 2010). Of the estimated 78,000 foster care
alumni who enroll in college, only about 26% have earned a degree or certificate
within six years of enrollment, compared to 56% of their non-foster care peers
(Davis, 2006).
Hahn and Price (2008) determined that students who do not enroll in college
point to cost and lack of financial aid as the primary obstacles. Tuition is a
formidable barrier to postsecondary education as young people in foster care are
disproportionately low-income and often lack financial and emotional support
from parents and other family members typically provided to their non-foster
care peers, often well into their twenties (Courtney et al., 2010). Young people in
foster care who are adopted or move into guardianship as adolescents often fare
no better (Day & Pennefather, 2014). Their new families generally have not had
the time or opportunity to create college funds or otherwise save for college
tuition.
Not pursuing/completing postsecondary education limits prospects for
employment and has significant implications on lifetime earning potential.
For example, in 2014, median earnings for young adults with bachelor’s
degrees were $49,900 and $37,500 for those with associate’s degrees com-
pared to $30,000 for those with high school credentials, and $25,000 for those
without high school credentials (National Center for Education Statistics,
2016). Income-related gaps among foster youth and their non-foster care
peers are large and appear to be growing (Macomber et al., 2008).
Policy efforts that support college access among foster youth
Several steps have been taken to address postsecondary education disparities
among foster youth. The education and training voucher (ETV) was the first
federal program specifically created to promote college access among current
and former foster youth. In 2002, under Title II of the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families Amendments (Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of
2001, 2001), Congress authorized the educational and vocational training
2L. HERNANDEZ ET AL.
programs for older youth, leaving foster care under the John H. Chafee Foster
Care Independence Program (Chaffee Foster Care Independence Program,
2015).
The tuition waiver is another growing financial aid resource developed by
states to support college attendance and address the educational deficits of foster
care youth. To date, 22 states have created tuition waiver programs that target
current and former foster care youth (Hernandez, Day, & Henson, 2016).
Tuition waivers are state-funded programs that increase access to higher educa-
tion for young people currently and formerly in foster care by “waiving”their
tuition and fees at public colleges and universities under certain conditions. All
states have tuition waivers for certain subpopulations, including active members
of the national guard, children and spouses of veterans, police officers, fire-
fighters, and emergency medical services personnel killed in the line of duty,
unaccompanied homeless youth, blind or deaf students, state employees, tea-
chers, nurses, and senior citizens (Hernandez, Day, & Henson, 2016;Military.
com, 2017; National Guard State Tuition Assistance, 2017).
This article seeks to provide clarity on what is known about tuition waivers
that target youth in foster care, including the political climates in which they
were implemented, as well as to identify similarities and differences across
programs. Recommendations for policy and practice reform to maximize
participation and success of these programs are also offered.
Theoretical framework
Many states have implemented tuition waivers based on research informed by
Tinto’s theory of student integration (Caison, 2005). This theory purports that
student attrition is due to inadequate social and academic integration into institu-
tional culture (Caison, 2005). As students become more integrated into the
culture, goal commitment increases, which fosters continued enrollment and
satisfactory academic progress. If students are not able to integrate into the
institution’s academic and social community due to an unmet need (i.e., a balance
remaining after federal, state, institutional, and other private contributions), they
tend to register for part-time studies, work excessively or live off campus, and their
goal and institutional commitments are diminished, resulting in a greater like-
lihood of transferring or dropping out of school (Caison, 2005). Working while
attending college and financial independence negatively affect undergraduate
retention. Students of color and students from low-income backgrounds are
more likely to be retained if they receive grants instead of loans (Demetriou &
Schmitz-Sciborski, 2011); as the majority of college-going foster care youth are
students of color (Summers, 2015), this strategy promises to increase college
retention rates for this population.
This is the first study to use a comparative state policy analysis framework
(Miller, 2004) to assess the political climate and underlying characteristics of
tuition waiver programs that specifically target foster youth. According to
FOSTER CARE TUITION WAIVERS 3
Miller (2004), comparative state policy analysis necessitates the inclusion of
state policy content as well as its diffusion and innovation. Variables col-
lected for inclusion in the current analysis include information on each
state’s political party control (Republican-controlled, Democratic-controlled,
or divided legislature), political affiliation of the state governor, and state
composition (the education levels and median household income of each
state’s residents) when the tuition waivers were implemented. Additional
variables included, based on important aspects of Tinto’s theory as it relates
to financial aid include factors related to student eligibility, a description of
tuition waiver spending strategies, and the level of funding afforded to
eligible students by state. Suggested variables omitted are data from public
and elite opinion polls. Only two public opinion studies were found related
to child welfare spending, and neither were specific to implementation of
tuition waiver programs that target foster youth or provided data by state.
These studies purport a relative positive attitude toward the nation’s foster
care system; however, the majority of respondents believed it was in need of
change and reform (Lake, 2012; Leber & LeCroy, 2012).
Methods
This study utilizes a comparative state policy analysis framework to examine the
22 state tuition waiver programs that target foster care youth. The current study
restricts the analysis to programs only with state legislation or policies authorizing
tuition waivers in operation over the 2014–2015 academic year. State scholarship
programs and policies not authorized by legislation or state administrative policy
were excluded from the analysis. Google Scholar was used to find information on
the various tuition waivers for each of the 50 states. Search terms were “[state]
tuition waiver foster,”“[state] tuition waiver foster care,”and “[state] tuition
waiver program foster care.”EBSCO, ERIC and the legal database, Lexus Nexis,
were used to confirm the existence of state legislation. Louisiana had pending
legislation for tuition waivers, but the state did not appropriate funding for its
program (Louisiana State Legislature, RS 17:1687, 2008). Utah legislation was
never enacted (Utah House Bill 64, 2001), and similarly a Mississippi bill (HB
811) failed to pass in 2015 (Mississippi HB 811, 2015). Another 13 states,
California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, and Wisconsin, were found to have
scholarship and grant programming that target foster youth, but have not adopted
or implemented actual tuition waiver programs (Eilertson, 2002;Michigan
Education Trust, 2015;Spigel,2004).
Data collected were uploaded into Google Docs, so each of the three
researchers had access to all applicable search documents. Each researcher
reviewed and coded all themes independently based on the document
reviews. After this process, the researchers cross-compared their independent
4L. HERNANDEZ ET AL.
codes to come up with the final themes. It was necessary to reach out to staff
in all 22 states, including each state’s child welfare and state education
authority, to clarify the meaning of language captured through state and
federal websites (Hernandez, Day, & Henson, 2016). This study was exempt
from the human subjects institutional review process as data collected was
restricted to material available in the public domain.
Findings
The data yielded eight major thematic categories: (1) the state and start date of
existing waiver programs; (2) legislation or policy information; (3) minimum age
in care for eligibility; (4) eligibility restrictions related to time spent in care; (5) age-
related eligibility requirements; (6) number of awarded waivers; (7) implementa-
tion associated costs; and (8) waiver restrictions. Descriptive information on each
state’s tuition waiver program can be found in Tables 1 and 2.
Twenty-two states have waiver programs either legislatively adopted or for-
mally administered under state administrative policy. Only Minnesota’sprogram
came out of a state administrative policy directive through a specific higher
education department. The earliest program, Florida, was implemented in 1988.
Most programs are less than 10 years old. See Table 1, column one, for specific
information on which states have adopted waivers and how long they have been
implemented. Legislatively mandated policies are afforded greater protections, as
they are not as likely to change due to turnover in administrative leadership.
The context behind the introduction of tuition waiver legislation does not
appear to be related to the political ideology or party control of a state. The
majority of tuition waivers (63%) were implemented through bipartisan efforts
(see Table 2). Specifically, 14 of the 22 states passed their tuition waiver policies
where the gubernatorial leadership differed from the political majority in the
legislature. The remaining eight tuition waiver states included those with guber-
natorial and legislative appointments controlled by the same party. In these eight
states, four were Democrat controlled and four were Republican controlled. States
with tuition waivers were signed into law by legislatures that were both
Democratic controlled (13) and Republican controlled (7) (National Conference
of State Legislatures, 2000). Two states were controlled by divided legislatures at
the time of waiver implementation (National Conference of State Legislatures,
2014). In addition, states with education levels and median household incomes
above the national average were not more likely to adopt tuition waiver programs
than were states with education and income levels below the national average (see
Table 2). Several states (41%) added tuition waivers for students in foster care to
previously implemented legislation regarding tuition waivers for other subpopula-
tions (Hernandez, Day, & Henson, 2016).
FOSTER CARE TUITION WAIVERS 5
Table 1. Description of Tuition Waiver Policy by State (N= 22).
State/Year of
Implementation Legislation/Policy Name
a
Age when Youth was in
Foster Care System
Minimum Time spent in
Foster Care
Age Limit for Youth to
Apply
Alaska, 2004 University of Alaska Presidential
Foster Youth Tuition Waiver
≥16 No < 21
Arizona, 2013 SB 1208, Arizona Revised Statute
15–1809
≥16 No < 23
Connecticut,
b
1994
A Postsecondary Education
Program-Department of Children
and Families: 48-20-2
By 18th birthday No Must enroll and be
accepted to program < age
21
Florida, 1988 §240.235(6)(a), § 1009.25(1)(c), (d),
Fla. Sta
On 18th birthday or <18 but in custody of the Department
Other eligibility criteria
No Youth becomes ineligible
at age 28
Kansas, 2002 Kansas Statutes Annotated 74–32,
161
Prior to 18th birthday if graduated HS or received general
equivalency diploma or on 18th b-day
No Must apply prior to their
23rd b-day
Must apply within 4 years
of HS graduation
Kentucky, 1999 Kentucky Revised Statutes 164.2847
(5), Kentucky Revised Statutes
605.090(3)
Must have been in custody on 18th b-day No NS*
Maine, 1999 PL 1999, C. 216, §1; Title 20A;
Education, Part 5 Postsecondary
education, Ch. 429A, §12572
No No Eligible for 5 years of full
time enrollment
Maryland, 2007 Section 15–106.1 of the Education
Article of the Maryland Annotated
Code
In care at age 13 No Apply before age 25
Massachusetts,
2000
Chapter 15 A Section 19 Public
Education Title 2
18 6 months before age 18 Can be used any time
before age 25
Minnesota, 1997 Minnesota State Colleges and
Universities System Procedures,
Chapter 5, Administration
Procedures associated with board
policy 5.12
18 No Apply by age 21
Missouri, 2011 Section 173.270.1 By 18th birthday NS
b
Must apply < age 21
(Continued )
6L. HERNANDEZ ET AL.
Table 1. (Continued).
State/Year of
Implementation Legislation/Policy Name
a
Age when Youth was in
Foster Care System
Minimum Time spent in
Foster Care
Age Limit for Youth to
Apply
New Hampshire,
2008
Title XV, Chapter187-A:20-b In out of home placement when 18 Yes, immediate 6 months
before18th birthday
Applicant must be <
23 years of age as of May 1.
New Jersey, 2003 Title 30.
Chapter 4 C.
Article VIII. §§1–5-
C.30:4 C-101
to 30:4 C-105, P. L. 2003, Chapter
132
≥16th birthday Yes, cumulative 9 months
after 16th b-day
Must enroll before 23rd
birthday
New Mexico,
2014
SB 206 In state or tribal custody, <18th birthday NS Must apply before age 25
North Carolina,
2009
North Carolina Reach
a
§ In care on 18th birthday NS Must apply before age 24
Oklahoma, 1999 10A Oklahoma Children and
Juvenile Code, Section 1-9-107 &
2010 Oklahoma Code Title 70
16 Yes, any 9 months btw ages
16 and 18
Must enroll within 3 years
from the date the student
left custody or graduated
from high school
Oregon, 2012 Oregon Revised Statutes 350.300,
H.B.2095
Must be in care ≥16th birthday Yes, must have at least
180 days of placement
services after age 14.
Must access waiver before
age 25
Rhode Island,
2000
Title 42 State affairs and
government, Chapter 42–72.8.
16 Yes, 2 years btw 16 and 18 Must apply by age 21,
If you received the grant at
age 21, it can continue
until 23
South Carolina,
2007
11.9 Commission of Higher
Education
Sec 54.367
In custody and attending a SC public university NS No
Texas, 1993 Texas Education
Code §54.366-.367
In conservatorship
of the State on the Day prior to one’s 18th birthday.
Other eligibility
criteria
No Must activate the waiver by
enrolling in a course at a
covered public institution
by age 25
Virginia, 2000 Virginia Code Title 23–7.4:5; applies
to
Community college only
Yes, 18 NS No
West Virginia,
2000
HB 4784, 18B-10-7B No Yes, 1 year immediately
prior to waiver award
Initial waiver must be
granted within 2 years of
graduating HS or GED
a
Information compiled from (Hernandez, Day, & Henson, 2016)
b
www.ncreach.org
FOSTER CARE TUITION WAIVERS 7
Eligibility criteria
Of the 22 states with waiver programs, only two (9%) of the states (Maine
and West Virginia) did not specify any type of age requirements for when
youth needed to be in foster care. The most common age requirement among
states is whether youth were in foster care on their 18th birthday. Ten states
require that youth be in care on or after their 18th birthday to be eligible for
tuition waiver programs. Table 1 highlights the age and time requirements of
states. Most states have various eligibility criteria, for example Florida’s
waiver includes: If the student was adopted from the Department of
Children and Families after May 5, 1997; or was at the time of reaching
age 18 in the custody of a relative under s. 39.5085, F.S.; or was at the time of
reaching age 18 in the custody of a non-relative under s. 39.5085, F.S.; or, was
placed in a guardianship by the court after spending at least 6 months in the
custody of the department after reaching 16 years of age. (Hernandez, Day &
Henson, 2016). Six (27%) states specify that youth must have been in foster
Table 2. State Political Characteristics by Year of Tuition Waiver implementation.
State
Year
Implementation Governor* Legislature*
Percentage of Population Over
25 with a Bachelor’s Degree or
Higher
Median
household
Income (USD)
FL 1988 Dem Rep 22** 38,819**
TX 1993 Dem Dem 22** 39,927**
CT 1994 Rep Dem 31** 53,935**
MN 1997 Rep Dem 27** 47,111**
KY 1999 Dem Dem 17** 33,672 **
ME 1999 Ind Dem 23** 37,240**
OK 1999 Rep Dem 24** 33,400**
MA 2000 Rep Dem 33** 50,502**
RI 2000 Rep Dem 26** 42,090**
VA 2000 Rep Rep 30** 46,677**
WV 2000 Rep Dem 15** 29,696**
KS 2002 Rep Rep 26** 40,624**
NJ 2003 Dem Div 30** 55,146
AK 2004 Rep Rep 25** 51,571
MD 2007 Rep Dem 31 66,873
SC 2007 Rep Rep 23 42,405
NH 2008 Dem Dem 33 63,989
NC 2009 Dem Dem 29 45,069
MO 2011 Dem Rep 25 46,123
OR 2012 Dem Rep 29 48,525
AZ 2013 Rep Rep 26 48,546
NM 2014 Rep Dem 26 44,968
National
average
in 2000
24 41,994
National
average
2011–15
30 53,889
DEM = Democrat, REP = Republican, Div = Divided, Ind = Independent, *Information retrieved from
(National Conference of State Legislatures, 2000). Partisan composition **Information retrieved from U.S.
Census (2000a,b) Summary Files.
8L. HERNANDEZ ET AL.
care on or after their 16th birthday. Texas also has various eligibility require-
ments such as: The day of the student’s 14th birthday, if the student was also
eligible for adoption on or after that day; The day the student graduated from
high school or received the equivalent of a high school diploma; The day the
student was adopted if that date is on or after September 1, 2009; The day
permanent managing conservatorship of the student was granted to an
individual other than the student’s parent, if that date is on or after
September 1, 2009; or If the student enrolls in a dual credit course or other
course which a high-school student may earn joint high school and college
credit, and is in conservatorship on the day of enrollment. Maryland has the
youngest age requirement at 13.
Minnesota, New Mexico, and Oregon explicitly extend eligibility to youth
in tribal custody. Minnesota’s waiver eligibility includes an American Indian
child under suspension or termination of parental rights in the guardianship
of a tribe or tribal social service agency (Children’s Law Center of Minnesota,
2016). New Mexico allows for a student who was in the legal custody of a
New Mexico nation, tribe or pueblo or the United States Department of the
Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs Division of Human Services to be eligible
for the tuition waiver (New Mexico State Bill 206, 2014). Oregon’s waiver
includes a child subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C.1901)
under the jurisdiction of a tribal court for out-of-home placement and not
dismissed from care before reaching 16 years of age (Indian Child Welfare
Act, 1978). Finally, Maryland is the only state to allow younger siblings of
eligible youth, who themselves were placed into guardianship or adopted
concurrently, to also be eligible for tuition waivers.
Six (27%) states set a minimum amount of time in foster care, ranging
from six months to two years. Four (18%) states require that the time occur
after the youth’s 16th birthday. West Virginia requires that youth must have
been in foster care one year immediately prior to graduating from high
school or receiving a general equivalency diploma (GED).
Most states (91%) have time requirements for when a youth must apply
for tuition waivers. The only programs that do not specify such requirements
are Kentucky and Maine. Of these, five (23%) of the states (Alaska,
Connecticut, Minnesota, Missouri, and Rhode Island) require a youth to be
21 years old or less when applying for the waiver.
One important distinction of state waiver programs is the time limits imposed
on tuition waivers. Some state programs may require tuition waiver use for a
number of consecutive years, whereas others will pay for a set number of
potentially non-consecutive semesters. For example, Alaska specifies that waiv-
ers can cover up to 144 credits. Seven (32%) states restrict waivers to a number of
consecutive years after initial application. Alaska allows waivers to be used over
six years. Kentucky, Maine, and Maryland allow five years. North Carolina,
Missouri, and Oregon allow for four years of use.
FOSTER CARE TUITION WAIVERS 9
Table 3. Cost Descriptives of Tuition Policies by State (N= 22).
State
Number of
Waivers Awarded
2014–2015
Amount of Tuition
Waived
2014–2015 Waiver Restrictions
Alaska 42 N/A Can cover 144 credits over 6 years not to exceed
10 semesters
Arizona 53 $157,736 Can receive until age 23
Connecticut 488 youth from
foster care
$4,143,303 For foster care youth, end of school year in which
the youth turns 23.
For youth in guardianships, until youth turns 21
Florida 4,739 eligible
youth.
N/A Pays for a total of 120 credits
Kansas 233 N/A In the semester in which the youth turns 23
Up to 5 years after first admittance, extensions
for youth serving in the Armed Forces, the
Commissioned Corps or Peace Corps
Kentucky N/A N/A Can be used for 5 years of full-time enrollment,
prior to receipt of baccalaureate degree
Maine 30 N/A 5 years after initial enrollment
Maryland 106 N/A Can be used until Sept 1 of current academic
year when
Massachusetts 353 youth in foster
care
N/A youth is 24 years or younger.
Can be used until Sept 1 of current academic
year when youth is 24 years or younger
Minnesota 20 of the 128
youth that
received ETV
Approximately
$46,000
Must be age 21 or under; can petition university
for extension until program is completed
Missouri 24 $188,000
appropriated in
state budget
Receive funding for up to four years
New
Hampshire
20 N/A Must be under the age of 23
New Jersey N/A N/A Can receive waiver until the age of 23; must be
used within 5 years of the application date
New Mexico N/A N/A NS*
North
Carolina
335 $1,928,490 Eligible up to age 26 or until they finish a
baccalaureate degree
Oklahoma 129 $331,670 Up to four years
Oregon 47 $64,130 Available for 4 years of undergraduate study
Rhode Island 17 $188,500 Up to 4 years
South
Carolina
8 $11,000 Up to 8 semesters, only for undergraduate
students
Texas 3,195 $8,389,635 in
foregone tuition
and fees
Once the waiver is activated, it is a lifetime
benefit to the youth
Virginia 8 $18,628.50 Has not been previously enrolled full time in a
postsecondary institution for more than 5 years.
Maintains a minimum of 6 credits.
West Virginia N/A N/A No more than 4 years of undergraduate study.
Total 5,108* $15,467,092.50 *(Excludes FL)
N/A = Not Applicable
*NS = Not Specified
10 L. HERNANDEZ ET AL.
Number of awarded waivers
Determining the number of youth who received tuition waivers in each state
proved difficult. Information was obtained from 17 of the 22 states and is
captured in Table 3. A 2014 report of Florida’s tuition waiver program found
that only 3,448 (15%) of 22,638 total eligible youth used the waiver (Florida
Children’s First, 2014). Florida’s Department of Children and Family (2017)
reported that 4,736 youth were eligible for the waiver fee exemption. The
Florida Department also provides some scholarship assistance to youth
through the Road to Independence Program, that has now been replaced
by the Postsecondary Education Services and Support (PESS). In the
2014–2015 academic year there were 945 youth that received the Road to
Independence Scholarship, and 1,536 that received PESS services.
Massachusetts reported that 353 youth received a tuition waiver for the
2014 academic year (Massachusetts Department of Higher Education,
2016); however the state is not able to track the number of students who
use the waiver after they have left the state’s custody.
Waiver costs
States also expressed challenges in ascertaining the full costs associated with
the implementation of state tuition waiver programs. In most states, the child
welfare agency does not pay tuition on the youths’behalf; universities must
waive the tuition. Since the child welfare agency is not paying, there is no
centralized method to track the dollar value of the program. In most states, the
program acts as a last dollar grant equal to the level of need based on the cost
of attendance, determined by the specific school the student is attending;
financial aid packages are then calculated based on a formula that includes
the sum of private, federal, and state grants and scholarships (including work
study) that is applied first, with tuition waivers covering the remaining balance.
The majority of states, like New Jersey and Virginia, apply the waiver as a last
dollar scholarship after other financial aid sources are applied.
Information regarding costs was collected for nine states (See Table 3)
from state waiver contacts (Hernandez et al., 2016). Maine reported
$333,382 spent on waivers for foster youth in fiscal year (FY) 2013 on
foster care tuition waivers (University of Maine System, 2014).
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities waived just under $175,000
in FY2014, benefitting 75 students attending 21 of its colleges and
universities (Children’s Law Center of Minnesota, 2016). Missouri’s
state budget appropriates $188,000 for the tuition waiver program. In
2014, Arizona spent $157,735.87 on tuition waiver awards. Oregon
reports that the state spent $110,937 on tuition waivers in the 2013–14
academic year (Oregon Office of Student Access & Completion, 2016).
FOSTER CARE TUITION WAIVERS 11
South Carolina’s funds for the tuition waiver program are capped at
$100,000 per year; however, South Carolina reported spending only
$11,000 on eight tuition waivers in the 2014–2015 academic year
(South Carolina Commission on Higher Education, 2016). Caldwell
(2016)reportedthatin2013–2014 academic year $9.3 million was
spent on forgone tuition and fees for students from foster care utilizing
the tuition waivers. Lutz (2016) reported that about 3,200 students used
the waivers in the 2015 budget year at a cost of about $8.3 million, a
decrease from 3,700 students two years earlier.
All but one state identified waiver program use restrictions. New Hampshire
and New Jersey allow youth to continue to receive the waiver until they turn 23;
Massachusetts extends to age 24. Oregon, South Carolina, and Virginia go to age
25, and Florida continues to age 28. New Mexicoand Texas do not specify an age
limit. Alaska, Maine, and New Hampshire also have caps of less than 30 tuition
waivers awarded each year. Virginia has a unique restriction that requires youth
to repay money received if youth enroll in less than six credits or withdraw from
all courses. The state legislature of Rhode Island appropriates $200,000 every
year for the Rhode Island Higher Education Opportunity Incentive Grant
program (Hernandez et al., 2016). South Carolina allows foster youth to receive
an extra $2,000 above the $2,500 maximum for need-based grants.
Discussion
Through examination of the 22 state-operated tuition waiver policies, eight
important themes emerged. Tuition waivers vary drastically in terms of eligibility
for participation across states. Other findings deserve special note. First, 82% of
existing state waiver programs have age requirements for youth foster care
involvement, and 34% have a minimum time youth must have been in care.
Seventy-eight percent of states have time requirements for applying for tuition
waivers. States reported difficulty in providing the exact number of students
served by waiver programs and the cost of implementing tuition waiver programs.
Implications for policy and practice
Findings from this study support the need to develop policies and practices to
ensure eligible foster youth have the opportunity to participate. States should have
clear policies to identify youth eligible for tuition waivers and to ensure the process
is simple and efficient. Only three states- Minnesota, New Mexico, and Oregon-
have incorporated language into their tuition waiver policies that directly speak to
tribal youth eligibility.
Another concern is that some state tuition waiver programs include onerous
paperwork requirements; this may serve as a barrier to youth accessing the waiver.
To address these concerns, states should institute a free 1–800 number or website
12 L. HERNANDEZ ET AL.
where youth and staff can receive quick information about the tuition waiver
eligibility process, Chafee ETV funding and other state scholarships. Outcome
data on program effectiveness are lacking in most states that operate tuition waiver
programs (i.e., college retention and graduation data). Outcome tracking should
include linking recipient data with data maintained by the Department of
Education-funded National Student Clearinghouse to determine college retention
and, ultimately, graduation rates of program recipients. In addition, the develop-
ment of a best practice guide could highlight different ways of conducting out-
reach about eligibility for tuition waivers and Chafee ETV funding to youth in
care, their foster and adoptive parents.
Findings indicate a wide variety of time limits on waiver use by age and number
of semesters. Some states require tuition waivers to be used in consecutive years
whereas others allow for students to use tuition waivers for a certain total number
of semesters. It is essential that tuition waivers be available through age 28 for
young people formerly in foster care. Researchers have found that youth who have
been in foster care take longer to attain degrees than their non-foster care peers
(Day et al., 2013); time limits connected to waiver use should be informed by this
research. Ending postsecondary tuition support for young people in foster care at
age 21 is particularly detrimental given the range of personal, social, and financial
challenges they have experienced, and are largely unknown to most of their non-
foster care peers. Foster youth face additional financial burdens beyond waiving
the costs of tuition. Of particular concern is the practice of some states to reduce
the tuition waiver by the amount of the ETV. ETVs are grants, funded through
federal Chafee dollars and administered by the states, in the sum of up to $5,000
per year through age 23 if youth received the voucher prior to their 21st birthday
to foster youth to help pay for college or specialized education (USDHHS, n.d.).
ETV awards should not be subtracted from tuition waiver calculations.
All but two of the tuition waiver states, Maine and West Virginia, dictate
eligibility for their waivers by imposing age restrictions on when youths’foster
care experience occurred. The College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 allows former
foster care youth who were in care on or after their 13th birthdays to claim
independent status on their Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA)
forms (College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-84, § 604
(a)(2),121 Stat 784, 2007). This statute provides precedence for lowering age
restrictions on eligibility to those who were in care on or after their 13th birthdays.
Due to school mobility issues, only 58% of foster care youth (N= 7,845)
surveyed at age 17 and then 19 had received a high school diploma or GED
(National Youth in Transition Database, 2014), a much lower rate than youth with
noinvolvementinfostercareat87%(Courtneyetal.,2007). For these reasons
youth in foster care are unlikely to graduate from college by the age of 23.
Currently, students are losing access to critical financial aid resources in the
middle of their college journeys, forcing some students to drop out of college
prematurely in seek of employment (GAO, 2016). Some states for example
FOSTER CARE TUITION WAIVERS 13
including Kentucky and Virginia, recognize that youth are attending college while
working, and allow part-time students to use waivers.
Tuition waiver programs are often last dollar programs for students to attend in
state public universities, yet funds appropriated for waivers is limited in many
states that offer them. It is critical that youth not only apply for the Free
Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), but also all other scholarships
and grants they are eligible for, reducing student debt as well as financial burdens
on waiver programs. In order to ensure this, youth must have case workers who
are knowledgeable about such funding sources, including the definition of inde-
pendent student status of the (FAFSA) (U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Federal Student Aid, n.d.), ETV funding, and if applicable their state’stuition
waiver program and any other state specific scholarships. Workers should be
expected to assist youth in applying to such sources, requesting college application
fee waivers, and navigating the college application process.
Limitations of the study
Limitations in the current study warrant noting. First, we were unable to collect
information on the number of youth served annually by five of the 22 states, and
unable to determine the annual cost of each program for 12 states since the cost
burden is usually incurred by universities. In addition, some state child welfare
agencies provide eligible youth with documentation highlighting their foster care
status. It is then the youth’sresponsibilitytotakethisinformationtotheuni-
versity’s financial aid office. Since the burden is placed on the student and the state
child welfare agency does not always have a data-sharing agreement with the
university, it is difficult to determine how many tuition waivers were granted.
Researchers were not able to contact all the universities to verify the number of
students who received waivers.
Further research needs to be conducted to determine the exact number of
students who used the tuition waivers; this is essential to conduct a cost benefit
analysis of these programs. Second, the majority of tuition waiver programs (52%)
are less than 10 years old; additional time is needed to determine the program
impact on actual college graduation rates of foster care youth. Finally, no equiva-
lent comparison data are available on the number of students from foster care
attending college in other non-tuition waiver states; therefore, we were unable to
determine if students from foster care in tuition waiver states experienced higher
rates of college attendance and graduationascomparedtostudentsinnon-tuition
waiver states.
Conclusion
In a knowledge economy, it is becoming increasingly important to obtain a
postsecondary credential (i.e., two-year, four-year or vocational certification) to
14 L. HERNANDEZ ET AL.
be able to secure and maintain meaningful employment that pays a living wage..
New strategies are needed to ensure that our nation’s most vulnerable young
people, those who have a history of placement in the foster care system, are able to
transition successfully from high school to college, work, and life. Tuition waivers
are one promising move toward realizing these life goals for all youth placed in
care.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Jarrod Grammel for his superb copy editing skills and
Carly Brin, & Neoshua Butler for their assistance in collecting the data that was used to
conduct this policy analysis.
References
Caison, A. L. (2005). Determinants of systemic retention: Implications for improving reten-
tion practice in higher education. Journal of College Student Retention,6(4), 425–441.
doi:10.2190/FBNU-G3CU-JBXR-MVH6
Caldwell, J. (2016). Letter to Texas department of family and protective services with informa-
tion regarding the exemptions from tuition and fees for foster care students. Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board, Austin, TX.
Chaffee Foster Care Independence Program. (2015). 42 U.S.C. 677, Section 477 of the Social
Security Act. Retrieved from https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0477.htm
Children’s Law Center of Minnesota. (2016). Scholarship opportunities and financial funding
for foster youth. Retrieved from http://www.clcmn.org/news-events/scholarship-opportu
nities-and-financial-funding-for-foster-youth/
Cohen, D. L. (2014). Foster youth share their school experiences. Baltimore, MD: Annie E
Casey Foundation.
College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007. H. R. 2669. 110
th
Congress, 1
st
Session, 2007.
Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ84/PLAW-110publ84.pdf.Washing-
ton, DC.
Courtney, M., Lee, J., & Perez, A. (2011). Receipt of help acquiring life skills and predictors of
help receipt among current and former foster youth. Children and Youth Services Review,
33(12), 2442–2451. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.026
Courtney, M. E. (2009). The difficult transition to adulthood for foster youth in the U.S.:
Implications for State as a corporate parent. Social Policy Report,23(1), 3–19.
Courtney, M. E., Dworsky, A., Lee, J. S., & Rapp, M. (2010). Midwest evaluation of adult
functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at ages 23 and 24. Retrieved from https://
www.chapinhall.org/sites/default/files/Midwest_Study_Age_23_24.pdf
Courtney, M. E., Dworsky, A. L., Cusick, G. R., Havlicek, J., Perez, A., & Keller, T. E. (2007).
Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at age 21.
Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.
Davis, 2006 is, R.J. (2006). College access, financial aid and college success for undergraduates
from foster care. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Financial Aid
Administrators. Retrieved from http://www.nasfaa.org/Subhomes/ResearchHome/
NASFAAFosterCare%20Report.Pdf
FOSTER CARE TUITION WAIVERS 15
Day, A., Dworsky, A., Damashek, A., & Fogarty, K. (2011). An examination of postsecondary
retention and graduation among foster care youth enrolled in a four-year university. Children
and Youth Services Review,33(11), 2335–2341. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.004
Day, A., Dworsky, A., & Feng, W. (2013). A discrete time survival analysis of the relationship
between foster care placement and the rate of graduation from a four-year university.
Journal of Research in Higher Education, 19. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/rhej.
html
Day, A., & Pennefather, M. (2014). Maltreatment as a predictor of college retention in
adopted, foster care and guardianship youth. The Roundtable,27(2), 6–7.
Demetriou, C., & Schmitz-Sciborski, A. (2011). Integration, motivation, strengths and opti-
mism: Retention theories past, present and future. In R. Hayes (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th
National Symposium on Student Retention, 2011, Charleston (pp. 300–312). Norman, OK:
The University of Oklahoma.
Eilertson, C. (2002). Independent living for foster youth. Denver, CO: National Conference of
State Legislatures.
File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. Retrieved from American Fact Finder. Retrieved from https://
factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
Florida Children’s First. (2014). Fostering higher education success: Tuition & fee exemption
for Florida’s foster youth. Retrieved from http://www.floridaschildrenfirst.org/?p=6017
Florida Department of Children and Families. (2017). Independent Living Services. Annual
Report. 2017. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
Government Accounting Office. (2016). Higher education: Actions needed to improve access to
federal financial assistance for homeless and foster youth. Retrieved from http://www.gao.
gov/products/GAO-16-343
Hahn, R. D., & Price, D. (2008) Promises lost: College qualified students who don’t enroll in
college. Institute for Higher Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.ihep.org/sites/
default/files/uploads/docs/pubs/promiselostcollegequalrpt.pdf
Haveman, R., & Smeeding, T. (2006). The role of higher education in social mobility. The
Future of Children,16(2), 125–150. doi:10.1353/foc.2006.0015
Hernandez, L., Day, A., & Crosby, S. (2015). Tuition waivers by state: An interactive map.
Retrieved from http://www.tipwaynestate.org/interactive-tuition-waiver-map.html
Hernandez, L., Day, A., & Henson, M. (2016). Increasing college access and retention of foster
care youth: A review of tuition waiver programs. Policy & Practice Brief. Wayne State
University. Retrieved from http://www.tipwaynestate.org/policy-projects.html).
Indian Child Welfare Act. (1978). (Pub.L. 95–608, 92 Stat. 3069). Retrieved at https://www.
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/25/chapter-21. Washington, DC.
Lake, C. (2012). Public opinion on child welfare. Lake Research Partners. Retrieved from
https://campaignforchildren.org/resources/polling-opinion-research/content2012-election-
voters-offer-bipartisan-support-for-childrens-priorities/
Leber, C., & LeCroy, C. W. (2012). Public perception of the foster care system: A national study.
Children and Youth Services Review,34,1633–1638. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.04.027
Louisiana State Legislature, Revised Statute 17:1687. (2008). Tuition and fee exemption;
persons in foster care; eligibility; duration; foster care status; verification; funding; defini-
tions.Baton Rouge, LA: Author
Lutz, E. (2016). Texas foster youth struggle to get college degrees. The Texas Tribune. Retrieved
from https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/13/foster-care-alumni-keep-struggling-reach-
higher-ed/
Macomber, J., Cuccaro Alamin, S., Duncan, D., McDaniel, M., Vericker, T., Pergamit, M.,
Barth, R. (2008). Coming of age: Empirical outcomes for youth who age out of foster care
16 L. HERNANDEZ ET AL.
in their middle twenties. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
Massachusetts Department of Higher Education. (2016) Department of children and families
foster child tuition waiver and fee assistance. Retrieved from http://www.mass.edu/osfa/
programs/dcffoster.asp
McMillen, J. C., Auslander, W., Elze, D., White, T., & Thompson, R. (2003). Educational
experiences and aspirations of older youth in foster care. Child Welfare,82, 475–495.
Michigan Education Trust. (2015). MET’s Fostering Futures scholarship assists young adults
that have experienced foster care attend college. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/
setwithmet/0,4666,7-237-61346-331426–,00.html
Military.com. (2017). State veteran benefits. Retrieved from http://www.military.com/benefits/
veteran-state-benefits/state-veterans-benefits-directory.html
Miller, E. A. (2004). Advancing comparative state policy research: Toward conceptual inte-
gration and methodological expansion. State and Local Government Review,36(1), 35–58.
doi:10.1177/0160323X0403600103
Mississippi House Bill 811. (2015). An act to waive the cost of tuition at any state institution of
higher learning for certain foster or adopted children or wards of the state subject to certain
conditions. Sponsor Representative Clark. Jackson, MS: Mississippi State Legislature.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Fast facts: What are the graduation rates for
students obtaining a bachelor’s degree? Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/
d14/tables/dt14_326.10.asp
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2000). Partisan composition of State Legislatures
1990–2000. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/documents/statevote/legiscontrol_1990_
2000.pdf
National Conference of State Legislatures (2014). Partisan composition of State Legislatures
2002–2014. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/documents/statevote/legiscontrol_2002_
2014.pdf
National Guard. (2017). State tuition assistance. Retrieved from https://www.nationalguard.
com/education-programs/state-tuition-assistance
National Youth in Transition Database. (2014). Data brief # 4: Comparing outcomes reported
at ages 17 and 19 in NYTD cohort 1. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/
files/cb/nytd_data_brief_4.pdf
New Mexico State Bill 206 (2014), “Foster Care System Student Tuition Waivers.”Retrieved
from http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/SB%20206.pdf Section 21-1-4 New Mexico
Statutes Annotated 1978. Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Oregon Office of Student Access and Completion. (2016). Oregon opportunity grants. Retrieved
from http://www.oregonstudentaid.gov/oregon-opportunity-grant.aspx.
Oregon Revised Statutes 350.300. (2015). Waiver of Tuition and Fees for Foster Child.
Retrieved from https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/350.300. Portland, OR.
Pecora, P., Kessler, R., O’Brien, K., White, C., Williams, J., Hiripi, E., & Herrick, M. (2006).
Educational and employment outcomes of adults formerly placed in foster care: Results
from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Children and Youth Services Review,28
(12), 1459–1481. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.04.003
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001. (2001). Pub. L. 107-133, 2, 2413.”
Washington, DC. Retrieved from: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr2873/text
South Carolina Commission on Higher Education. (2016). SC need based grant program.
Retrieved from http://www.che.sc.gov/Students,FamiliesMilitary/PayingForCollege/
FinancialAssistanceAvailable/ScholarshipsGrantsforSCResidents/SCNeed-
basedGrantProgram.aspx
FOSTER CARE TUITION WAIVERS 17
Spigel, S. (2004). Support for foster children’s postsecondary education. Hartford, CT: State of
Connecticut General Assembly Office of Legislative Reports.
Summers, A. (2015). Disproportionality rates for children of color in foster care (fiscal year
2013). Retrieved from http://www.ncjfcj.org/Dispro-TAB-2013
U.S. Census. (2000a) Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. Census 2000
Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. Retrieved from. https://factfinder.census.gov/
faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
U.S. Census. (2000b). Educational Attainment bySex: 2000. Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) -
Sample Data. Retrieved from. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/pro
ductview.xhtml?src=CF
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid. (n.d) For purposes of applying
for federal student aid, what’s the difference between a dependent student and an inde-
pendent student? Retrieved from. https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/fafsa/filling-out/dependency.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth and
Families, Children’s Bureau. (n.d.). The John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
Washington, DC: Author. . Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pro
grams_fund/state_tribal/jh_chafee.htm
University of Maine System. (2014). Administrative practice letter. University of Maine
Tuition Waivers.Orono, ME: Author.
Utah House Bill 64. (2001). Tuition waivers for wards of the state. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah
State Legislature.
Venezia, A., & Jaeger, L. (2013). Transitions from high school to college. The Future of
Children,23(1), 117–136. doi:10.1353/foc.2013.0004
18 L. HERNANDEZ ET AL.
