By: Amberly Dziesinski
If you listen in to a conversation between members of the SSTAR Lab discussing financial aid policies, chances are, you’ll hear the phrase “administrative burden.” Administrative burdens are the costs associated with accessing a public benefit, from learning about the program, to proving you are eligible and complying with the requirements, to stressing about jumping through all these hoops. Administrative burdens create barriers to participation, which is particularly concerning when financial aid is on the line. For many low- and middle-income students—a disproportionate number of whom are racially minoritized—the decision to enroll in college and complete their degree hinges on access to financial aid and scholarships.
However, through our conversations with financial aid practitioners, we’ve also learned there are opportunities to turn burdensome requirements into student supports. In this post, I discuss how one policy, Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP), does just that. I offer a brief literature review and highlight the University of Wisconsin-Madison Office of Student Financial Aid’s (OSFA) efforts to reduce the potential barriers this policy imposes.
What is SAP?
The federal government offers financial aid directly to low-income students through the Pell grant, a need-based award students do not need to repay, and through federal loan programs. To continue receiving federal financial aid throughout college,
What is SAP’s effect?
Minimal scholarly research has been conducted on how SAP affects student outcomes. At best, studies have found SAP has no effect or has a beneficial push for students who are just below the GPA threshold for making SAP. At worst, SAP has been found to be detrimental to student persistence overall and to have a negative impact for students with lower GPAs.
There are also disparities in meeting SAP across race and other student demographic characteristics, underscoring the persistent concerns about the equity implications of this policy. In a descriptive study from 1988, McNair and Taylor also found that Black students were more likely to fail SAP than their white peers. The authors described how Black students are systematically underprepared for college due to inequities in the K12 education system and argued that students shouldn’t be further penalized for these inequities:
As is, one might argue that the SAP regulations, to a large extent, further deny the “neediest” (academic and economic) students a fair chance to develop their capabilities… Based on these findings, it seems that the SAP policy discriminates against the very people that the financial aid was designed to help. Thus, one readily sees that students who are academically disadvantaged are not served equitably by the federal regulatory SAP policy.
Why does SAP implementation matter?
Federal regulations give institutions of higher education flexibility to establish SAP requirements and processes to monitor SAP. Institutions have the option of creating an appeal process and/or placing students on a financial aid probation so they can continue to receive financial aid for the next payment period. If these processes are difficult to navigate, students may face administrative burdens that dissuade them from appealing or even persisting in college. In the landscape of public policy, administrative burdens are typically greater for policies that would benefit people with marginalized racial and socioeconomic identities. Prior research has demonstrated when policies are administered at the discretion of bureaucrats, white individuals receive better treatment. The framework of racialized administrative burdens challenges scholars to consider how the designs and implementation of policies may impose greater burdens on racially minoritized students.
Institutional policies around SAP may exacerbate or reduce administrative burdens for historically marginalized students. A recent study found navigating the SAP process can be confusing for students of color. The students interviewed for the study, all of whom were low-income Asian American students, did not have a clear understanding of SAP—even though they had recently gone through the SAP appeals process. The authors identified the students did not necessarily have a family or institutional support system necessary to help them navigate the process.
Could SAP be re-conceptualized as a safety net?
Since financial aid administrators have flexibility over the implementation of SAP, they have agency to remove administrative burdens for students accessing federal financial aid. We see promising practices unfolding at OSFA. First, OSFA c the administration process. Prior to 2022, students appealed to SAP using a physical form they had to print and bring to their advisor for a signature before filing the form with OSFA. In 2022, OSFA developed an electronic form to make it easier for students to file their appeal. Second, OSFA increased outreach from their student success coaches who can help students learn skills for academic success. In conversations with practitioners, we’ve heard SAP discussed as a student-centric safety net, an opportunity to engage with and support students facing academic or personal challenges.
So, we need more research?
SAP processes affect students at nearly every college across the country, yet minimal research has examined SAP audits or the institutional actors who design and implement local policies. Existent studies commonly focus on the negative effects of SAP, without offering evidence of alternatives approaches. I hope to see additional research on SAP, including promising practices for student support, in the future. There are no national statistics or datasets on SAP, so researchers must undertake these studies in with institutions to gain insight into the administration and effectiveness of SAP policies. Through the SSTAR Lab’s research practice partnership with OSFA, we are lucky to see policy implementation unfold in positive ways right before our eyes.