Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
158699962
label
D.L. [Direct Loan] Number of Schools
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
158699962
contentType
document
title
D.L. [Direct Loan] Number of Schools
citationUrl
collections
Records of the National Economic Council (Clinton Administration)
Bob Shireman's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
158699962
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-4481639-20171069F-005-007-2019
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
5938cca2c722a9bb
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2017-1069-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
National Economic Council
Series/Staff Member:
Bob Shireman
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
13218
FolderID:
Folder Title:
D.L. [Direct Loan] Number of Schools
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
15
1
11
1
Constance J. Bowers
05/09/97 03:10:12 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Robert M. Shireman/OPD/EOP
cc:
Barry White/OMB/EOP, Patricia A. Smith/OMB/EOP
Subject: responses to 2nd set of Shireman comments
Attached is ED's most recent redraft of the student loan participation rate letter, and a response to your
other questions. Please let me know what you think of it.
Forwarded by Constance J. Bowers/OMB/EOP on 05/09/97 03:14 PM
Lori_Templeman @ ed.gov
05/09/97 01:35:00 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Constance J. Bowers
cc:
Subject: responses to 2nd set of Shireman comments
Attached is a redraft of the Goodling/Kasich letter that takes all of
Bob Shireman's second set of changes EXCEPT that the price competition
paragraphs we modified-the first being a combination of his
suggestion and our draft, and the second one being unchanged. We
think that his suggested edit said largely the same thing as our first
paragraph, but that the tone was more forceful than the rest of the
letter, and it needed to be blended in. We also didn't use the word
"cream"; we said "entice". Another substitute word would be okay too, if
you have a suggestion.
As far as his questions go, Colleen McGinnis is going to call him. In
summary, though:
Re: Q#1 - the problem with our NSLDS data dates back to the earliest days
of NSLDS. We are improving it, but that is forward looking and doesn't change
the unreliable data from earlier days. In fact, using 93 numbers presents the
same problem as using the most recent numbers.
Re: Q#2- we do have firm data on volume (which includes disbursements and
commitments) for both programs, but not on eligibility and participation for
FFEL. A Program Manager has been hired to ensure that we get accurate data for
all programs. There has been a major push to get the level of detail in the
statistical information we are now able to get for Direct Loans, and we are
aiming for that for the other programs as well.
050914GM.WPD 050914GN.TXT
050914GM.WPD
Page 1
1
Dear 2:
This letter and attached enclosures are in response to your letter dated April 10, 1997,
concerning the levels of participation in the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan
Program (Direct Loan Program) and the Federal Family Education Loan Program
(FFEL Program).
At the outset, it is important to point out that the success of the Direct Loan Program is
best measured by the fact that it holds approximately one-third of the student loan
volume after less than three years of operation. Direct Loans' success in providing
funds to students faster and eliminating administrative burdens on institutions, in
addition to providing them a single source of loan capital, has been a major factor in its
appeal to students and schools. An additional important measure of the success of the
Direct Loan Program is the positive impact it has had on the performance and services
provided to program participants in the FFEL program. The healthy competition
between the Direct Loan Program and the FFEL Program has led to improved services
for students and institutions in both programs.
As you are aware, the nation's postsecondary institutions are permitted to participate in
federal student financial aid programs in whatever configuration of their component
parts that they prefer. For example, the Pennsylvania State University system has the
latitude to identify each of its 23 campuses as separate schools for federal student aid
program purposes, consider the entire system as one school, or fashion some other
combination in between these two options. Furthermore, Pennsylvania State could
identify itself as one school for one program, such as the Pell Grant program, and 23
schools for another, such as the FFEL program. Because of these and other
complexities, loan volume is the most meaningful measure of a program's size. That is
clearly why Congress used loan volume as the primary measure in the Direct Loan
statute.
Your letter asked us to provide information on a number of specific points regarding the
Direct Loan Program. That information is provided below. To place this information in
context, it would be most useful to compare it to analogous information on the FFEL
Program. However, due to the complexity of that program and the fact that the
Department is dependent on the guaranty agencies for data, the format and accuracy
of which varies sharply, the Department is unable to to provide similar statistics for the
FFEL Program in a timely manner for inclusion in this letter. (As you know, as reported
by GAO, the IG, and the independent auditor for the
Department's Financial Statement, the primary reason the FFEL program has been
unable to obtain a "clean" audit for decades is the inability of the guaranty agencies to
provide timely and accurate data.)
050914GM.WPD
Page 2
1. Provide a list of all schools actually drawing down funds in the Direct Loan
Program.
There are currently 1,527 institutions eligible to participate in the Direct Loan Program.
Enclosure A lists the 1,290 schools that, to date, have drawn down funds for Academic
Year (AY) 1996-97. Of these, 23 schools have closed, withdrawn, or been terminated
from the program since making their last drawdown. Consequently, these 23 schools
are no longer included in our eligibility counts.
2. Of the schools actually drawing down funds, what percentage of loan volume is
being disbursed through the Direct Loan Program as opposed to the FFEL
Program?
Through February 28, 1997, in AY 1996-97 schools that participated in both loan
programs had $9.6 billion in committed loan volume. Approximately $8.6 billion, or 89
percent, was in Direct Loans. Because some of these schools elected not to participate
in the Direct Loan Program at 100 percent, the balance, $1.0 billion, was in FFELs. For
the same period, schools that participated in both programs had disbursed $7.4 billion.
Approximately $6.6 billion, also 89 percent, were Direct Loan disbursements and the
balance, $800 million, were FFEL disbursements.
3. Provide a list of all schools that at one point had committed to enter the Direct Loan
Program, and therefore were counted in the 1,622 school number reported by
the GAO, that are not participating in the Direct Loan Program.
As of December 1996, 1,622 institutions applied for eligibility to participate in the Direct
Loan Program, as reported in the GAO report to which you refer. Of those 1,622, the
136 institutions listed in Enclosure B have since withdrawn, deferred their participation,
closed, or been terminated by the Department. However, in that same time period, the
41 schools listed in Enclosure B1 have become eligible, or regained lost eligibility. The
net effect of these activities is that there are currently 1,527 institutions eligible to
participate in the Direct Loan Program. It is not unusual for a Title IV program to have a
greater number of schools eligible to participate than actually do participate. For
example, in the Pell Grant Program there are 6,086 schools eligible to participate, but
only 5,724 actually participate. In the Perkins Loan Program there are 3,950 schools
eligible to participate, yet only 2,381 actually participate.
4. Provide a list of schools that are not actively drawing down funds in the Direct Loan
Program, but that the Department has included in its official count of 1,527
participating schools.
Enclosure C is a list of schools that are eligible to participate in the Direct Loan
Program but have not drawn down funds since July 1, 1996. Schools are permitted to
freely move back and forth between the two loan programs to meet their needs and the
needs of their students, and institutions are free to choose when they actually begin
050914GM.WPD
Page 3
participation in direct lending, so it is not surprising that some eligible institututions have
not participated so far this year.
Some schools have clearly decided that the best way to take advantage of the
competitive pressures is to maintain eligibility to participate in either program. Among
the hundreds of college and university presidents who urged President Clinton to veto
the proposed 10 percent cap on the program in 1995 were many who wanted Direct
Loans to thrive so that they would continue to have this option, even if they were not
currently participating in the Direct Loan Program. These college and university
presidents remain supporters of the Direct Loan Program. In recent testimony, Dr.
Michael McPherson, a prominent economist, expert on higher education, and the new
president of Macalester College, told the House Committee on Ways and Means that
"[T]he banks and guaranty agencies are alert to the fact that they're working in a
competitive environment. [I]t's important to keep the direct lending program, even
though my own college is not currently a participant."
5. Provide a list of all schools who at one point drew down funds in the Direct Loan
Program but who have subsequently stopped drawing down funds in the Direct
Loan Program.
Enclosure D is a list of Direct Loan schools that have withdrawn their participation,
closed or been terminated by the Department since making their last drawdown. These
are the same 23 schools mentioned in Enclosure A.
6. Provide the number of students who are served by each of the two programs.
The Department estimates that in AY 1996-97, 1.8 million borrowers will receive Direct
Loans and 2.8 million will receive FFELs. These loan amounts represent, for Direct
Loans, 36 percent of total loan volume, and for FFELs, 64 percent of total loan volume.
These totals do not include consolidation loans, and are based upon committed loan
amounts.
Even leaders of the FFEL industry admit that competition from Direct Lending has
brought better service to borrowers and schools in both programs. The competitive
environment that now exists demonstrates the wisdom of the President's veto of the
cap on Direct Loans in 1995 and his position against any cap on either program by the
105th Congress.
This Department continues to manage two strong loan programs, and has proposed
to Congress in its FY 1998 Budget a number of changes to ensure equity for borrowers
in both programs, including increased benefits to FFEL borrowers such as flexible
repayment options, competitive interest rates on consolidation loans, and retention of
interest subsidy upon consolidation. These benefits are in addition to large reductions
in origination fees for borrowers in both programs. The President's budget will also
050914GM.WPD
Page 4
strengthen the FFEL program by streamlining functions and creating financial
incentives that will reduce the need for regulation and will save taxpayer funds.
The appearance of a strong, effective direct loan program has energized the
guaranteed loan industry in important ways. The FFEL-providing community, in order
to compete with direct lending, is using federal tax subsidies to lower fees and interest
rates for students and families. The authority has long existed in law but was not widely
used before the advent of competition from direct lending. Before direct lending, FFEL
providers argued that margins were so narrow that any reductions in federal subsidies
would force them from the program. It is now clear that this was not the case.
Federally guaranteed student loans are one of the most profitable lines of business in
ender
the banking industry,
Price competition is good insofar as it results in less net subsidy to loan holders and
guaranty agencies and puts more funds into the hands of students and families.
However, I should note that some FFEL providers, in the face of competition from direct
lending, are offering special deals to schools or students -- something that rarely if
ever occurred before Direct Loans.
While the Administration has no objection to general offers made to borrowers
or to schools, it is not appropriate to use Federal subsidies to entice targeted
institutions or students.
The solution the President's budget proposes is to lower origination fees for borrowers
in both programs so that all students benefit, not just those chosen by the FFEL loan
providers. The President's budget pays for this by reducing interest rate subsidies for
loan holders and by eliminating redundant federal reserves in the guaranty agencies.
The evaluations received by the Department and by independent evaluation contractors
have been very positive. Independent evaluations have suggested that one of the
Direct Loan Program's greatest liabilities has been political uncertainty about the
program's future in Congress. The ongoing debate appears to be a key factor in
limiting participation because some schools continue to be concerned about the fate of
direct lending and, consequently, are hesitant about joining the program.
In summary, support for the Direct Loan Program is strong across the entire higher
education community, regardless of participation. The data we have provided indicate
that direct lending is a success and, among other benefits, has created a competitive
environment that has improved services across the board to all institutions and
students. I am pleased with the higher education community's response to our efforts,
and also with the growing appreciation for the President's proposed reforms within the
banking and guaranty agency communities.
I look forward to working with you as we continue our efforts to complete the
President's reforms.
050914GM.WPD
Page 5
Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley
Enclosures
CC: Clay
Spratt
McKeon
Kildee
GAO
Robert M. Shireman
05/08/97 01:09:21 AM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Constance J. Bowers/OMB/EOP
CC:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
Subject: Re: ED letter on student loan participation
Edits:
realize I probably instigated the third paragraph, but I would like it deleted. Delete "Secondly" from
the fourth paragraph and add at the end: "Because of these and other complexities, loan volume is the
most meaningful measure of a program's size. That is clearly why Congress used loan volume as the
primary measure in the Direct Loan statute. If
Change "contrast it with similar" to "compare it to analogous". Also, put the last sentence in
parentheses.
First graph under Q4, delete the second sentence ("The fact that. "). At the end of the graph, add a
comma and "and institutions are free to choose when they actually begin participation in direct lending, so
it is not surprising that some eligible institututions have not participated so far this year."
Second graph under Q4, replace first sentence with something like: "Some schools have clearly
decided that the best way to take advantage of the competitive pressures is to maintain eligibility to
participate in either program."
-Second graph under Q6, change the first sentence to something like: "Even leaders of the FFEL
industry admit that competition from Direct Lending has brought better service to borrowers and schools
in both programs."
Third graph under Q6, in first sentence, delete "to both programs" and before "save taxpayer funds" at
the end of the graph, insert "will".
I am not comfortable with the next two paragraphs on price competition. I would prefer something like:
"I should note that some FFEL providers, in the face of competition from direct lending, are offering
special deals to schools or students something that rarely if ever occurred before Direct Loans. While
the Administration has no objection to general offers made to borrowers or to schools, it is not
appropriate to use Federal subsidies to "cream" targeted institutions or students. In some cases,
guaranty agencies have foregone their insurance premiums at the same time that they asked Congress
for additional subsidies essentially, using appropriated Federal funds, rather than any real reduction in
profits or increase in efficiency, to "compete" with Direct Lending."
Delete the first sentence of the graph that begins, "In my view, the responses.
u
Questions:
Re: answer #1. Do we not even have old FFEL data that would be analogous? It would be helpful to
say, for example, that in 1993 there were 5,000 schools eligible for FFEL, but only 4,000 which had an
loan activity.
Re: answer #2. How do we know how much was committed or disbursed at these schools in the FFEL
program? My understanding is that we don't have firm data. If these are estimates, then we need to say
what they are based on. If they are guesstimates, we should consider not providing the data. (And in
either case we should again take the opportunity to point out that we don't really know what goes on in
FFEL on a day-to-day basis).
Can someone do a little research into how long after deregulation of AT&T's long-distance monopoly it
took MCI, Sprint, etc. to gain a third of the market share? I know it took much longer than 3 years. I
don't think it should go into the letter, but it should be ready for a press question as soon as the letter
goes out.
Message Copied To:
Kenneth S. Apfel/OMB/EOP
Barry White/OMB/EOP
Patricia A. Smith/OMB/EOP
S.A. Noe/OMB/EOP
Kathryn B. Stack/OMB/EOP
Daniel J. Chenok/OMB/EOP
William R. Kincaid/OPD/EOP
050711BH.WPD
Page 1
1
Dear 2:
This letter and attached enclosures are in response to your letter dated April 10, 1997,
concerning the levels of participation in the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan
Program (Direct Loan Program) and the Federal Family Education Loan Program
(FFEL Program).
At the outset, it is important to point out that the success of the Direct Loan Program is
best measured by the fact that it holds approximately one-third of the student loan
volume after less than three years of operation. Direct Loans' success in providing
funds to students faster and eliminating administrative burdens on institutions, in
addition to providing them a single source of loan capital, has been a major factor in its
appeal to students and schools. An additional important measure of the success of the
Direct Loan Program is the positive impact it has had on the performance and services
provided to program participants in the FFEL program. The healthy competition
between the Direct Loan Program and the FFEL Program has led to improved services
for students and institutions in both programs.
I believe emphasizing the number of schools in the Direct Loan Program, in an attempt
to characterize the program's success, is inappropriate for two reasons. First, the true
measure of the success of the program is the loan volume, as is the focus in the law.
Loan volume reflects the number of borrowers, number of loans, and actual loan
amounts. By way of analogy, the appropriate way to measure the financial success of
a banking institution is total assets, not the number of its branches. Similarly, the
appropriate way to measure the financial success of a student loan lender is total loan
volume, not the number of schools served.
Secondly, as you are aware, the nation's postsecondary institutions are permitted to
component parts that they prefer. For example, the Pennsylvania State University
federal student aid program purposes, consider the entire system as one school, or
and compliations, lean volue
specified M sparure The MST meaningful mosere of pmgmis size.
participate in federal student financial aid programs in whatever configuration of their
system has the latitude to identify each of its 23 campuses as separate schools for
fashion some other combination in between these two options. Furthermore,
Pennsylvania State could identify itself as one school for one program, such as the Pell
Grant program, and 23 schools for another, such as the FFEL program. becare of free
Your letter asked us to provide information on a number of specific points regarding the
Direct Loan Program. That information is provided below. To place this information in
context, it would be most useful to contrast it with similar information on the FFEL
Program. However, due to the complexity of that program and the fact that the
Department is dependent on the guaranty agencies for data, the format and accuracy
of which varies sharply, the Department is unable to to provide similar statistics for the
Zampare it to analagoes
050711EH.WPD
Page 2
FFEL Program in a timely manner for inclusion in this letter. As you know, as reported
by GAO, the IG, and the independent auditor for the
Department's Financial Statement, the primary reason the FFEL program has been
unable to obtain a "clean" audit for decades is the inability of the guaranty agencies to
provide timely and accurate data.
1. Provide a list of all schools actually drawing down funds in the Direct Loan
Program.
There are currently 1,527 institutions eligible to participate in the Direct Loan Program.
Enclosure A lists the 1,290 schools that, to date, have drawn down funds for Academic
Year (AY) 1996-97. Of these, 23 schools have closed, withdrawn, or been terminated
from the program since making their last drawdown. Consequently, these 23 schools
are no longer included in our eligibility counts.
- Ae al NT have old data M FFEL eligible B.
2. Of the schools actually drawing down funds, what percentage of loan volume is
being disbursed through the Direct Loan Program as opposed to the FFEL
Program?
Through February 28, 1997, in AY 1996-97 schools that participated in both loan
programs had $9.6 billion in committed loan volume. Approximately $8.6 billion, or 89
percent, was in Direct Loans. Because some of these schools elected not to participate
How
in the Direct Loan Program at 100 percent, the balance, $1.0 billion, was in FFELs. For
the same period, schools that participated in both programs had disbursed $7.4 billion.
de vp da up
Approximately $6.6 billion, also 89 percent, were Direct Loan disbursements and the
Canws
balance, $800 million, were FFEL disbursements.
3. Provide a list of all schools that at one point had committed to enter the Direct Loan
Program, and therefore were counted in the 1,622 school number reported by
the GAO, that are not participating in the Direct Loan Program.
As of December 1996, 1,622 institutions applied for eligibility to participate in the Direct
Loan Program, as reported in the GAO report to which you refer. Of those 1,622, the
136 institutions listed in Enclosure B have since withdrawn, deferred their participation,
closed, or been terminated by the Department. However, in that same time period, the
41 schools listed in Enclosure B1 have become eligible, or regained lost eligibility. The
net effect of these activities is that there are currently 1,527 institutions eligible to
participate in the Direct Loan Program. It is not unusual for a Title IV program to have a
greater number of schools eligible to participate than actually do participate. For
example, in the Pell Grant Program there are 6,086 schools eligible to participate but
only 5,724 actually participate. In the Perkins Loan Program there are 3,950 schools
eligible to participate, yet only 2,381 actually participate.
4. Provide a list of schools that are not actively drawing down funds in the Direct Loan
Program, but that the Department has included in its official count of 1,527
050711BH.WPD
Page 3
participating schools.
Enclosure C is a list of schools that are eligible to participate in the Direct Loan
Program but have not drawn down funds since July 1, 1996. The fact that some
institutions are eligible to participate in direct lending but have not drawn down funds
recently is not necessarily an indication that they are dissatisfied with the program.
up
Schools are permitted to freely move back and forth between the two loan programs to
meet their needs and the needs of their students, 59 IT not cupinsig That some elg.
an not
Institutions are also free to choose when they actually begin participation in direct
lending. Among the hundreds of college and university presidents who urged President
Clinton to veto the proposed 10 percent cap on the program in 1995 were many who
wanted Direct Loans to thrive so that they would continue to have this option, even if
they were not currently participating in the Direct Loan Program. These college and
university presidents remain supporters of the Direct Loan Program. In recent
testimony, Dr. Michael McPherson, a prominent economist, expert on higher education,
and the new president of Macalester College, told the House Committee on Ways and
Means that "[T]he banks and guaranty agencies are alert to the fact that they're working
in a competitive environment. [I]t's important to keep the direct lending program, even
though my own college is not currently a participant."
5. Provide a list of all schools who at one point drew down funds in the Direct Loan
Program but who have subsequently stopped drawing down funds in the Direct
Loan Program.
Enclosure D is a list of Direct Loan schools that have withdrawn their participation,
closed or been terminated by the Department since making their last drawdown. These
are the same 23 schools mentioned in Enclosure A.
6. Provide the number of students who are served by each of the two programs.
The Department estimates that in AY 1996-97, 1.8 million borrowers will receive Direct
Loans and 2.8 million will receive FFELs. These loan amounts represent, for Direct
Loans, 36 percent of total loan volume, and for FFELs, 64 percent of total loan volume.
These totals do not include consolidation loans, and are based upon committed loan
amounts.
two 14 M 9' that camp has lamght I
Lachals M math purpose
I believe competition to provide better service to all borrowers is good. The competitive
environment that now exists demonstrates the wisdom of the President's veto of the
cap on Direct Loans in 1995 and his position against any cap on either program by the
105th Congress.
This Department continues to manage two strong loan programs, and has proposed
to Congress in its FY 1998 Budget a number of changes to both programs to
A same schools Gove cleanly dearfied that the best aay to
tak advancise of The comp, is to mainidin elig, M Corn paurrerpape 19 program, effer
05071
Page 4
ensure equity for borrowers in both programs, including increased benefits to FFEL
borrowers such as flexible repayment options, competitive interest rates on
consolidation loans, and retention of interest subsidy upon consolidation. These
benefits are in addition to large reductions in origination fees for borrowers in both
programs. The President's budget will also strengthen the FFEL program by
streamlining functions and creating financial incentives that will reduce the need for
regulation and save taxpayer funds.
The appearance of a strong, effective direct loan program has energized the
guaranteed loan industry in important ways. The FFEL-providing community, in order
to compete with direct lending, is using federal tax subsidies to lower fees and interest
rates for students and families. The authority has long existed in law but was not widely
used before the advent of competition from direct lending. Before direct lending, FFEL
providers argued that margins were so narrow that any reductions in federal subsidies
would force them from the program. It is now clear that this was not the case.
Federally guaranteed student loans are one of the most profitable lines of business in
the banking industry.
Price competition is good insofar as it results in less net subsidy to loan holders and
guaranty agencies and puts more funds into the hands of students and families.
However, the price competition is uneven. Students in some states can take advantage
of certain price breaks while students in others cannot. The potential in the FFEL
program for discrimination against certain institutions, and discriminatory classifications
of students within institutions, is disturbing. The fact that in the direct lending program
there are no such price breaks for borrowers threatens the goal of equal terms and
conditions for borrowers across, as well as within, the loan programs.
The solution the President's budget proposes is to lower origination fees for borrowers
in both programs so that all students benefit, not just those chosen by the FFEL loan
providers. The President's budget pays for this by reducing interest rate subsidies for
loan holders and by eliminating redundant federal reserves in the guaranty agencies.
in my view, the responses to your questions do not reflect dissatisfaction with direct
lending. The evaluations received by the Department and by independent evaluation
contractors have been very positive. Independent evaluations have suggested that one
of the Direct Loan Program's greatest liabilities has been political uncertainty about the
program's future in Congress. The ongoing debate appears to be a key factor in
limiting participation because some schools continue to be concerned about the fate of
direct lending and, consequently, are hesitant about joining the program.
In summary, support for the Direct Loan Program is strong across the entire higher
education community, regardless of participation. The data we have provided indicate
that direct lending is a success and, among other benefits, has created a competitive
environment that has improved services across the board to all institutions and
050711BH.WPD
Page 5
students. I am pleased with the higher education community's response to our efforts,
and also with the growing appreciation for the President's proposed reforms within the
banking and guaranty agency communities.
I look forward to working with you as we continue our efforts to complete the
President's reforms.
Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley
Enclosures
cc: Clay
Spratt
McKeon
Kildee
GAO
050614DK.WPD
Page 1
1
Dear 2:
This letter and attached enclosures are in response to your letter dated April 10,
1997, concerning the levels of participation in the William D. Ford Federal Direct
Loan Program (Direct Loan Program) and the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFEL Program).
At the outset, it is important to point out that the success of the Direct Loan
Program is best measured by its capture of approximately one-third of the student
loan volume in less than three years. Direct Loans' success in providing funds to
students faster and eliminating administrative burdens on institutions, in addition to
providing them a single source of loan capital, has been a major factor in its appeal
to students and schools. An additional important measure of the success of the
Direct Loan Program is the positive impact it has had on the performance and
services provided to program participants in the FFEL program. The healthy
competition between the Direct Loan Program and the FFEL Program has led to
improved services for students and institutions in both programs.
I believe emphasizing the number of schools in the Direct Loan Program, in an
attempt to characterize the program's success, is inappropriate for two reasons.
First, the true measure of the success of the program is the loan volume, as is the
focus in the law. Loan volume reflects the number of borrowers, number of loans,
and actual loan amounts. By way of analogy, the appropriate way to measure the
financial success of a banking institution is total assets, not the number of its
branches. Similarly, the appropriate way to measure the financial success of a
student loan lender is total loan volume, not the number of schools served.
Secondly, as you are aware, the nation's postsecondary institutions are permitted
to participate in federal student financial aid programs in whatever configuration of
their component parts that they prefer. For example, the Pennsylvania State
University system has the latitude to identify each of its 23 campuses as separate
schools for federal student aid program purposes, consider the entire system as one
school, or fashion some other combination in between these two options.
Furthermore, Pennsylvania State could identify itself as one school for one program,
such as the Pell Grant program, and 23 schools for another, such as the FFEL
program.
Your letter asked us to provide information on a number of specific points regarding
the Direct Loan Program. That information is provided below. To place this
information in context, it would be most useful to contrast it with similar
information on the FFEL Program. However, due to the complexity of that program
and the fact that the Department is dependent on the guaranty agencies for data,
050614DK. WPD
Page 2
the format and accuracy of which may vary, the Department is unable to to provide
similar statistics for the FFEL Program in a timely manner for inclusion in this letter.
1. Provide a list of all schools actually drawing down funds in the Direct Loan
Program.
There are currently 1,527 institutions eligible to participate in the Direct Loan
Program. Enclosure A lists the 1,290 schools that, to date, have drawn down
funds for Academic Year (AY) 1996-97. Of these, 23 schools have closed,
withdrawn, or been terminated from the program since making their last drawdown.
Consequently, these 23 schools are no longer included in our eligibility counts.
2. Of the schools actually drawing down funds, what percentage of loan volume
is being disbursed through the Direct Loan Program as opposed to the FFEL
Program?
So far in AY 1996-97 (through the end of February), schools that participated in
both loan programs had $9.6 billion in committed loan volume. Approximately
$8.6 billion, or 89 percent, was in Direct Loans. Because some of these schools
elected not to participate in the Direct Loan Program at 100 percent, the balance,
$1.0 billion, was in FFELs. For the same period, schools that participated in both
programs had disbursed $7.4 billion. Approximately $6.6 billion, also 89 percent,
were Direct Loan disbursements and the balance, $800 million, were FFEL
disbursements.
3. Provide a list of all schools that at one point had committed to enter the Direct
Loan Program, and therefore were counted in the 1,622 school number
reported by the GAO, that are not participating in the Direct Loan Program.
As of December 1996, 1,622 institutions applied for eligibility to participate in the
Direct Loan Program, as reported in the GAO report to which you refer. Of those
1,622, 136 have since withdrawn, deferred their participation, closed, or been
terminated by the Department. However, in that same time period, 41 schools
have become eligible, or regained lost eligibility. The net effect of these activities is
that there are currently 1,527 institutions eligible to participate in the Direct Loan
Program. It is not unusual for a Title IV program to have a greater number of
schools eligible to participate than actually do participate. For example, in the Pell
Grant Program there are 6,086 schools eligible to participate but only 5,724
actually participate. In the Perkins Loan Program there are 3,950 schools eligible to
participate, yet only 2,381 actually participate.
4. Provide a list of schools that are not actively drawing down funds in the Direct
Loan Program, but that the Department has included in its official count of
1,527 participating schools.
050614DK.WPD
Page 3
Enclosure C is a list of schools that are eligible to participate in the Direct Loan
Program but have not drawn down funds since July 1, 1996. The fact that some
institutions are eligible to participate in direct lending but have not drawn down
funds recently is not necessarily an indication that they are dissatisfied with the
program. Schools are permitted to freely move back and forth between the two
loan programs to meet their needs and the needs of their students.
Institutions are also free to choose when they actually begin participation in direct
lending. Among the hundreds of college and university presidents who urged
President Clinton to veto the proposed 10 percent cap on the program in 1995
were many who wanted Direct Loans to thrive so that they would continue to have
this option, even if they were not currently participating in the Direct Loan Program.
These college and university presidents remain supporters of the Direct Loan
Program. In recent testimony, Dr. Michael McPherson, a prominent economist,
expert on higher education, and the new president of Macalester College, told the
House Committee on Ways and Means that "[T]he banks and guaranty agencies are
alert to the fact that they're working in a competitive environment. [I]t's important
to keep the direct lending program, even though my own college is not currently a
participant."
5. Provide a list of all schools who at one point drew down funds in the Direct
Loan Program but who have subsequently stopped drawing down funds in
the Direct Loan Program.
Enclosure D is a list of Direct Loan schools that have withdrawn their participation,
closed or been terminated by the Department since making their last drawdown.
These are the same 23 schools mentioned in Enclosure A.
6. Provide the number of students who are served by each of the two programs.
The Department estimates that in AY 1996-97, 1.8 million borrowers will receive
Direct Loans and 2.8 million will receive FFELs. These loan amounts represent, for
Direct Loans, 36 percent of total loan volume, and for FFELs, 64 percent of total
loan volume. These totals do not include consolidation loans, and are based upon
committed loan amounts.
I believe competition to provide better service to all borrowers is good. The
competitive environment that now exists demonstrates the wisdom of the
President's veto of the cap on Direct Loans in 1995 and his position against any
cap on either program by the 105th Congress.
The Administration continues to support two strong loan programs, as is reflected
in the President's FY 1998 budget. The budget includes a number of changes to
050614DK.WPD
Page 4
ensure equity for borrowers in both programs, including increased benefits to FFEL
borrowers such as flexible repayment options, competitive interest rates on
consolidation loans, and retention of interest subsidy upon consolidation. These
benefits are in addition to large reductions in origination fees for borrowers in both
programs. The President's budget will also strengthen the FFEL program by
streamlining functions and creating financial incentives that will reduce the need for
regulation and save taxpayer funds.
A benefit of having two strong loan programs is not just better service, but the
introduction of price competition. The FFEL-providing community, in order to
compete with direct lending, is using federal tax subsidies to lower fees and
interest rates for students and families. The authority has long existed in law but
was not widely used before the advent of competition from direct lending. Before
direct lending, FFEL providers argued that margins were so narrow that any
reductions in federal subsidies would force them from the program. It is now clear
that this was not the case. Federally guaranteed student loans are one of the most
profitable lines in the banking industry.
Price competition is good insofar as it results in less net subsidy to loan holders and
guaranty agencies and puts more funds into the hands of students and families.
However, the price competition is uneven. Students in some states can take
advantage of certain price breaks while students in others cannot. The potential in
the FFEL program for discrimination against certain institutions, and discriminatory
classifications of students within institutions, is disturbing. The fact that in the
direct lending program there are no such benefits for borrowers threatens the goal
of equal terms and conditions for borrowers across, as well as within, the loan
programs.
The solution the President's budget proposes is to lower origination fees for
borrowers in both programs so that all students benefit, not just those chosen by
the FFEL loan providers. The President's budget pays for this by reducing interest
rate subsidies for loan holders and by eliminating redundant federal reserves in the
guaranty agencies.
In my view, the responses to your questions do not reflect dissatisfaction with
direct lending. The evaluations received by the Department and by independent
evaluation contractors have been very positive. Independent evaluations have
suggested that one of the Direct Loan Program's greatest liabilities has been
political uncertainty about the program's future in Congress. The ongoing debate
appears to be a key factor in limiting participation because some schools continue
to be concerned about the fate of direct lending and, consequently, are hesitant
about joining the program.
In summary, support for the Direct Loan Program is strong across the entire higher
050614DK.WPD
Page 5
education community, regardless of participation. The data we have provided
indicate that direct lending is a success and, among other benefits, has created a
competitive environment that has improved services across the board to all
institutions and students. I am pleased with the higher education community's
response to our efforts, and also with the growing appreciation for the President's
proposed reforms within the banking and guaranty agency communities.
I look forward to working with you as we continue our efforts to complete the
President's reforms.
Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley
Enclosures
cc: Clay
Spratt
McKeon
Kildee
GAO
Robert M. Shireman
05/02/97 06:52:51 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Jon_Oberg @ ed.gov @ INET @ LNGTWY
cc:
Subject: Re: Goodling/Kasich Reply
I'll touch base with Colleen McGinnis on some of these issues on Monday.
On price competition, I definitely want to oppose the scam whereby guarantors ask appropriators for
ACA, just so they can use it to bribe schools into FFEL. I don't mind also going into the discriminatory
deals by lenders. But I want to be careful not to appear to go any further.
On FFEL's dirty linen, I'm more interested in FFEL present than past. Anytime anyone demands anything
on direct lending, we must force them to compare it not only to perfection, but to FFEL as well. So if
someone is asking how many schools draw down funds in direct loans, and we're telling them, we should
also reveal the fact that (for example) FFEL is so complicated and the data is so filtered by GAs that we
cannot get a firm answer to a similar question in a timely way.
Jon_Oberg @ ed.gov
05/02/97 08:46:00 AM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Robert M. Shireman
cc:
Subject: Goodling/Kasich Reply
Bob,
I saw your questions about the reply to Goodling and Kasich, which
have gone over to OPE. I agree that the reply should make the lists of
schools secondary to an up front statement on volume.
You didn't identify any specific problems with the points about price
competition, but let me say this language came from OLCA. The DL
community is looking for a signal that the Administration will stay
the course on leveling the playing field on price. Clay and Spratt
also need to see us making our case, and this is the logical place to
make it since "budget deliberations" are the stated reason for the
Goodling/Kasich request.
My guess is that adding enclosures making the FFEL past a focus of the
letter would not help sell our changes, but rather deepen the R's
suspicions that the motive behind the budget proposal is to kill FFEL
off, and they would use it to try to discount our whole package of
FFEL reforms.
We are under pressure from both Goodling and Kasich to get the letter
out. Let me know if there is anything further we can do. --Jon
Robert M. Shireman
04/30/97 02:00:56 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Constance J. Bowers/OMB/EOP
CC:
Subject: Re: ED Letter on participation in student loan programs
Questions about each of the answers:
1. Are there comparable numbers in FFEL? # of schools eligible to participate, versus the number that
have actually made loans?
2. Please explain the concept of a "commitment" and a "disbursement" in the FFEL program. How do
we know how much FFEL volume these schools do? (This might be an opportunity to point out how
much more data we have on direct than FFEL, because of the structure of the programs).
3. For the Pell and Perkins examples that are provided, wouldn't the relevant direct loan number be 1290
"actually participating" rather than the 1527 "eligible" that is in the response? Is this really an appropriate
comparison, given that Pell and Perkins don't have alternative delivery mechanisms for the same
benefits. It seems that this response should instead compare to both the FFEL eligibles versus actuals,
as well as the number of schools eligible for LOANS (either direct or FFEL), and the number of those that
actually partake.
4. Is this the 1527 minus 1290 -- in other words, 237 schools? Much of the explanation should be
moved to the beginning of the letter.
5. The response doesn't appear to answer the question: The 23 are official withdrawals. I think the
question is, of the 237 who haven't drawn down since July '96, how many of them had ever participated in
DL by drawing down funds?
6. Do the disbursements match these commitment levels? Again, what is a "commitment" in the FFEL
construct. (Again, possibly an opportunity to describe the enormously complexities of figuring out how
many people are borrowing in the FFEL program).
Ideally, the response to the letter could detail a lot of the problems with the FFEL program, difficulties
getting timely and accurate data, etc. (including charts, lists and supporting documentation) This could
be used as the launching point for the discussion about the reforms that are being proposed: e.g.,
competition has worked, everyone has benefited, forget about the number of schools, let's make sure
that both programs are manageable.
At least the letter should begin with the fact that the number of schools is a problematic measure, which
is why the LAW focuses on loan volume ("A number of schools, as the prez of Macalaster College
testified, are eligible for both programs, in order to maximize competitive proessures. "). Giving the loan
volumes up front (assuming they are backed up with disbursement data), helps to address any questions
that come up from the later responses regarding the number of schools.
I'm not sure what I think about the price competition paragraphs. I would want to take another look at
them in the context of the answers to my other questions.
APR-29-1997 17:06 TO:ROBERT SHIREMAN
FROM:DADE, J.
P. 1/8
URGENT
Total Pages: 8
LRM ID: CJB32
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Washington, D.C. 20503-0001
Tuesday, April 29, 1997
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
Legislative Liaison Officer - See Distribution below
Connie 9 BOINETS for
FROM:
Janet R. Forsgren (for) Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
OMB CONTACT:
Constance J. Bowers
PHONE: (202)395-3803 FAX: (202)395-6148
SUBJECT:
EDUCATION Report on Participation Levels in Student Loan Programs
DEADLINE:
3:00 p.m. Wednesday, April 30, 1997
In accordance with OMB Circular A-19, OMB requests the views of your agency on the above
subject before advising on its relationship to the program of the President. Please advise us if this
item will affect direct spending or receipts for purposes of the "Pay-As-You-Go" provisions of Title
XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
COMMENTS: The attached letter responds to a letter sent by Reps. Goodling and Kascich on levels
of participation in the two student loan programs. The enclosures that ED proposes to append to its
letter are voluminous and consist only of lists of schools. Therefore, we will not circulate them
unless you request they be sent to you individually. Mr. Goodling's staff is pressing for this
response and advises that it will be a key factor in the budget discussions that are currently
underway between Goodling and Kascich. Therefore, the response includes discussion about the
President's budget proposed support for the two programs.
DISTRIBUTION LIST
AGENCIES:
EOP:
Robert M. Shireman
Michael Cohen
Ananias Blocker III
William R. Kincaid
Kenneth S. Apfel
Barry White
Kathryn B. Stack
S. A. Noe
Daniel J. Chenok
Charles Konigsberg
Alice E. Shuffield
Robert G. Damus
Janet R. Forsgren
Jim Murr
APR-29-1997 17:06 TO:ROBERT SHIREMAN
FROM:DADE, J.
P. 2/8
LRM ID: CJB32
SUBJECT: EDUCATION Report on Participation Levels in Student Loan
Programs
RESPONSE TO
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL
MEMORANDUM
If your response to this request for views is short (e.g., concur/no comment), we prefer that you respond by
e-mail or by faxing us this response sheet. If the response is short and you prefer to call, please call the
branch-wide line shown below (NOT the analyst's line) to leave 8 message with a legislative assistant.
You may also respond by:
(1) calling the analyst/attorney's direct line (you will be connected to voice mail If the analyst doos not
answer); or
(2) sending US a memo or letter
Please include the LRM number shown above, and the subject shown below.
TO:
Constance J. Bowers Phone: 395-3803 Fax: 395-6148
Office of Management and Budget
Branch-Wide Line (to reach legislative assistant): 395-7362
FROM:
(Date)
(Name)
(Agency)
(Telephone)
The following is the reponse of our agency to your request for views on the above-captioned subject:
Concur
No Objection
No Comment
See proposed adits on pages
Other:
FAX RETURN of
pages, attached to this reponse sheet
APR-29-1997 17:06 TO:ROBERT SHIREMAN
FROM:DADE, J.
P. 3/8
Page 1
1
Dear 2:
This letter and attached enclosures are in response to your letter dated April 10,
1997, concerning the levels of participation in the William D. Ford Federal Direct
Loan Program (Direct Loan Program) and the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFEL Program).
At the outset, it is important to point out that the success of the Direct Loan
Program is best measured by its capture of approximately one-third of the student
loan volume in less than three years. Direct Loans' success in providing funds to
students faster and eliminating administrative burdens on institutions, in addition
to providing them a single source of loan capital, has been a major factor in its
appeal to students and schools. An additional important measure of the success
of the Direct Loan Program is the positive Impact it has had on the performance
and services provided to program participants in the FFEL program. The healthy
competition between the Direct Loan Program and the FFEL Program has led to
improved services for students and institutions in both programs.
Your letter asked us to provide information on a number of specific points
regarding the Direct Loan Program. That information is provided below.
1. Provide a list of all schools actually drawing down funds in the Direct Loan
Program.
There are currently 1,527 institutions eligible to participate in the Direct Loan
Program. Enclosure A lists the 1,290 schools that, to date, have drawn down
funds for Academic Year (AY) 1996-97. Of these, 23 schools have closed,
withdrawn, or been terminated from the program since making their last
drawdown. Consequently, these 23 schools are no longer included in our
eligibility counts.
2. Of the schools actually drawing down funds, what percentage of loan volume
is being disbursed through the Direct Loan Program as opposed to the FFEL
=of the 4690 schools PRACED
Program?
how
So far in AY 1996-97 (through the end of February), schools that participated in
both loan programs had $9.6 billion in committed loan volume. Approximately
$8.6 billion, or 89 percent, was in Direct Loans. Because some of these schools
elected not to participate in the Direct Loan Program at 100 percent, the balance,
$1.0 billion, was in FFELs. For the same period, schools that participated in both
programs had disbursed $7.4 billion. Approximately $6.6 billion, also 89 percent,
were Direct Loan disbursements and the balance, $800 million, were FFEL
hots FREL volumez, I Can to
APR-29-1997 17:06 TO:ROBERT SHIREMAN
FROM:DADE, J.
P. 4/8
Page 2
disbursements.
3. Provide a list of all schools that at one point had committed to enter the Direct
Loan Program, and therefore were counted in the 1,622 school number
reported by the GAO, that are not participating in the Direct Loan Program.
in FREE, to abreh
As of December 1996, 1,622 institutions applied for eligibility to participate in the
Direct Loan Program, as reported in the GAO report to which you refer. Of those
1,622, 136 have since withdrawn, deferred their participation, closed, or been
terminated by the Department. However, in that same time period, 41 schools
This arl be compared ??
have become eligible, or regained lost eligibility. The net effect of these activities
is that there are currently 1,527 institutions eligible to participate in the Direct
Loan Program. It is not unusual for a Title IV program to have a greater number of
schools eligible to participate than actually do participate. For example, in the Pell
Grant Program there are 6,086 schools eligible to participate, but only 5,724
actually participate. In the Perkins Loan Program there are 3,950 schools eligible
to participate, yet only 2,381 actually participate.
4. Provide a list of schools that are not actively drawing down funds in the Direct
Loan Program, but that the Department has included in its official count of
1,527 participating schools.
hit
Enclosure c is a list of schools that are eligible to participate in the Direct Loan
Hour Mony
Program but have not drawn down funds since July 1, 1996. The fact that some
on that
institutions are eligible to participate in direct lending but have not drawn down
list
funds recently is not necessarily an indication that they are dissatisfied with the
program Schools are permitted to freely move back and forth between the two
(1527)
loan programs to meet their needs and the needs of their students,
Institutions are also free to choose when they actually begin participation in direct
lending. Among the hundreds of college and university presidents who urged
President Clinton to veto the proposed 10 percent cap on the program in 1995
were many who wanted Direct Loans to thrive so that they would continue to
have this option, even if they were not currently participating in the Direct Loan
Program. These college and university presidents remain supporters of the Direct
Loan Program. In recent testimony, Dr. Michael McPherson, a prominent
economist, expert on higher education, and the new president of Macalester
College, told the House Committee on Ways and Means that "[T]he banks and
when?
guaranty agencies are alert to the fact that they're working in a competitive
environment. [l]t's important to keep the direct lending program, even though my
own college is not currently a participant."
5. Provide a list of all schools who at one point drew down funds in the Direct
Loan Program but who have subsequently stopped drawing down funds in
APR-29-1997 17:06 TO:ROBERT SHIREMAN
FROM:DADE, J.
P.5/8
Page 3
the Direct Loan Program.
Enclosure D is a list of Direct Loan schools that have withdrawn their participation,
closed or been terminated by the Department since making their last drawdown.
These are the same 23 schools mentioned in Enclosure A.
6. Provide the number of students who are served by each of the two programs.
The Department estimates that in AY 1996-97, 1.8 million borrowers will receive
Direct Loans and 2.8 million will receive FFELs. These loan amounts represent, for
Direct Loans, 36 percent of total loan volume, and for FFELs, 64 percent of total
loan volume. These totals do not include consolidation loans, and are based upon
committed loan amounts.
I believe competition to provide better service to all borrowers is good. The
competitive environment that now exists demonstrates the wisdom of the
President's veto of the cap on Direct Loans in 1995 and his position against any
cap on either program by the 105th Congress.
The Administration continues to support two strong loan programs, as is reflected
in the President's FY 1998 budget. The budget includes a number of changes to
ensure equity for borrowers in both programs, including increased benefits to FFEL
borrowers such as flexible repayment options, competitive interest rates on
consolidation loans, and retention of Interest subsidy upon consolidation. These
benefits are in addition to large reductions in origination fees for borrowers in both
programs. The President's budget will also strengthen the FFEL program by
streamlining functions and creating financial incentives that will reduce the need
for regulation and save taxpayer funds.
A benefit of having two strong loan programs is not just better service, but the
introduction of price competition. The FFEL-providing community, in order to
compete with direct lending, is using federal tax subsidies to lower fees and
interest rates for students and families. The authority has long existed in law but
was not widely used before the advent of competition from direct lending. Before
direct lending, FFEL providers argued that margins were so narrow that any
reductions in federal subsidies would force them from the program. It is now clear
that this was not the case. Federally guaranteed student loans are one of the
most profitable lines in the banking Industry.
Price competition is good insofar as it results in less net subsidy to loan holders
and guaranty agencies and puts more funds into the hands of students and
families. However, the price competition is uneven. Students in some states can
take advantage of certain price breaks while students in others cannot. The
potential in the FFEL program for discrimination against certain institutions, and
APR-29-1997 17:06 TO:ROBERT SHIREMAN
FROM:DADE, J.
P. 6/8
Page 4
discriminatory classifications of students within institutions, is disturbing. The fact
that in the direct lending program there are no such benefits for borrowers
threatens the goal of equal terms and conditions for borrowers across, as well as
within, the loan programs.
The solution the President's budget proposes is to lower origination fees for
borrowers in both programs so that all students benefit, not just those chosen by
the FFEL loan providers. The President's budget pays for this by reducing interest
rate subsidies for loan holders and by eliminating redundant federal reserves in the
guaranty agencies.
In my view, the responses to your questions do not reflect dissatisfaction with
direct lending. The evaluations received by the Department and by independent
evaluation contractors have been very positive. Independent evaluations have
suggested that one of the Direct Loan Program's greatest liabilities has been
political uncertainty about the program's future in Congress. The ongoing debate
appears to be a key factor in limiting participation because some schools continue
to be concerned about the fate of direct lending and, consequently, are hesitant
about joining the program.
In summary, support for the Direct Loan Program is strong across the entire higher
education community, regardless of participation. The data we have provided
indicate that direct lending is a success and, among other benefits, has created a
competitive environment that has improved services across the board to all
institutions and students. I am pleased with the higher education community's
response to our efforts, and also with the growing appreciation for the President's
proposed reforms within the banking and guaranty agency communities.
I look forward to working with you as we continue our efforts to complete the
President's reforms.
Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley
Enclosures
cc: Clay
Spratt
McKeon
Kildee
GAO
APR-29-1997 17:06 TO:ROBERT SHIREMAN
FROM:DADE, J.
P.7/8
Ul the United States
Mashington, BC 20515
Incoming
April 10, 1997
VIA FACSIMILE: 202/401-0596
The Hunorable Richard Riley
Socretary of Education
U.S. Department of Education
600 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20202
Dear Secretary Riley:
The Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on the Hudget are
charged with ensuring the effective, efficient and economical operation of the Department of
Education. The Committees are also responsible for ensuring the activities of the Department are
consistent with all applicable law. Recently, the General Accounting Office (GAO) prepared a
report for the Budget Committee which examined the number of schools in the William D. Ford
Federal Direct Student Loan Program (FDSLP) and the Federal Family Education Loan Program
(FFELP) as of October, 1996. It is important for both Budget deliberations and Higher
Education authorization that the Committees examine the levels of participation in both
programs.
It is our understanding that there have been significant changes in the number of schools
in the FDSLP since the time of the GAO report. For example, the Department indicated as of
October that there were 1,622 schools in the PDSLP and 4,690 schools in the FFELP. However,
more recent numbers indicate a significant decline in the number of schools interested in
participating in the FDSLP. The most recont numbers which have been reported to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce by the Direct Loan Tack Force indicate that there
are only 1,527 schools participating in the FDSLP. As we understand the Department's
definition of schools participating In the FDSLP, the Department Includes schools which have
not over made a Direct Loan, but rather have been approved to participate in the FDSLP should
the school choose. A follow-up report provided to the Education and the Workforce Committee
by the Direct Loan Task Force indicates that only 1,260 schools actually drawn down money
under the FDSLP. Further, it is our understanding that many of the 1,260 schools which are
using the FDSLP are only using it for a portion of their loans, and therefore many of those
schools continue to use the FFELP. In order to got an accurate and complete picture of school
participation in the FDELP please provide the following information:
1. A list of all schools actually drawing down funds in the FDSLP.
2. of the schools actually drawing down funds, what percentage of loan volume is being
disbursed through the FDSLP as opposed to the FFELP?
PRINTED
-
or
P.8/8
APR-29-1997 17:06 TO:ROBERT SHIREMAN
FROM: DADE, J.
3. A list of all schools which at one paint had committed to entor the FDSLP. and
therefore were counted in the 1,622 school number reported by the GAO, who are not
participating in FDSLP.
4. A list of schools who are not actively drawing down funds in the FDSLP, but who the
Department has included in its official count of 1,527 participating schools.
5. A list of all schools who at one point drew down funds In the FDSLP but who have
subsequently stopped drawing down funds In FDSLP.
6. The number of students who are served by each of the two programs.
Due to the time-sensitive nature of these concerns, please provide the Committees with
two copies of your written response no later than close of business. April 24, 1995.
Thank you In advance for your assistance. If you or your staff have any questions
regarding this request, please contact Mark Brenner at 202-275-7101 or Kathy Ormiston al 20Z-
226-1894.
Sincerely,
Bill Zalling BILL GOODLING
JOHN R. KASICH Kasich
Chairmen,
Chairman,
Committee on Education
Committee on the Budget
and the Workforce
cc:
The Honorable William Clay
The Honorable John Spratt, Jr.
The Honorable Howard "Buck" McKoon
The Honorable Dale Kildee
Ms. Carlotts Joyner. General Accounting Office
Ms. Kay Casstovens, Congressional Affairs
U.S. Department of Education