This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-7 
entitled 'Federal Student Loans: Impact of Loan Limit Increases on 
College Prices Is Difficult to Discern' which was released on February 
18, 2014. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

February 2014: 

Federal Student Loans: 

Impact of Loan Limit Increases on College Prices Is Difficult to 
Discern: 

GAO-14-7: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-14-7, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

A college education can increase the choices and opportunities 
available to individuals, but high college tuition rates have prompted 
concerns that a college education may be an unattainable goal for 
some. To help students finance their education, Congress passed a law 
that raised the ceiling on the amount students can borrow under the 
federal Stafford Loan Program (referred to in the law as "loan 
limits"). The Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 
mandated a series of GAO reports over a 5 year period assessing the 
impact of these increases in the loan limits on tuition and other 
expenses and on private student loan borrowing. 

For this final report, GAO examined: (1) the extent to which, if any, 
the Stafford loan limit increases affected tuition, fees and room and 
board prices at institutions of higher education; and (2) the trends 
in private student loan borrowing since the loan limits took effect. 
GAO developed a statistical model to explore whether the loan limit 
increases in academic years 2007-08 and 2008-09 had an impact on 
college prices in subsequent years. GAO analyzed data from the 
Department of Education (Education) and the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau (CFPB) for 2005 through 2011. GAO also interviewed 
officials from eight higher education institutions that represented a 
mix of college sectors in different regions of the country, three of 
the largest private student lenders, federal officials, and subject 
matter specialists. 

What GAO Found: 

For more than a decade, college prices have been rising consistently 
and have continued to rise at a gradual pace after the Stafford loan 
limit increases were enacted in 2008 and 2009. However, it is 
difficult to determine if a direct relationship exists between 
increases in college prices and the Stafford loan limit increases 
because of the confluence of many other factors that occurred around 
the time the loan limit increases took effect. Specifically, when the 
loan limit increases took effect, the nation was in a recession, which 
created one of the most tumultuous and complex economic environments 
in recent history. GAO's analysis found that the economic effects of 
the recession, which affected families' employment, income, and net 
worth make it difficult to isolate the impact the recession had on 
students' decisions to borrow money to finance college expenses versus 
the impact of the loan limit increases. Further, federal, state, and 
institutional aid available to students also increased significantly 
around the same time the loan limit increases went into effect. It is 
difficult to determine the extent to which the increased availability 
of this financial aid influenced the decisions of students on whether 
and how much money they should borrow versus the availability of 
increased loan limits. Conversely, GAO's analysis shows that even 
though college prices continued to increase at a gradual pace over the 
last decade as well as after the loan limits increased, enrollment, 
which can be sensitive to price increases, also generally continued to 
grow across both public and private institutions and in all regions of 
the country. 

Around the time that the loan limit increases took effect, the number 
of students taking out private education loans decreased across all 
types of institutions; lenders were making fewer loans and students 
borrowed less. Specifically, before the loan limit increases, the 
number of students borrowing private loans for academic year 2007-08 
was about 2.8 million; after the limits went into effect the number 
had dropped by over 50 percent to about 1.3 million for academic year 
2011-12. Similarly, the average amount of money that students borrowed 
from private student loans decreased by about 17 percent after the 
loan limits went into effect. For example, for academic year 2007-08 
students' private student loans averaged about $7,048 and for academic 
year 2011-12 this had dropped to about $5,870. According to the 
federal and institutional officials as well as financial lending 
experts that GAO spoke with, many factors may explain the changed 
private loan landscape. For example, these officials and experts noted 
that: 

* lenders tightened lending criteria—such as requiring higher credit 
scores and co-signers—making it more difficult to obtain these loans; 

* Congress enacted new protections to raise students' awareness about 
private loans, including disclosures of loan rates and terms; and; 

* colleges took steps to help students find alternatives to private 
borrowing and reduce reliance on private loans, such as increasing 
institutional aid and providing financial literacy counseling to help 
inform students about their federal assistance options. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO makes no recommendations in this report. Education and CFPB had no 
comments. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-7]. For more 
information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at (617) 788-0580 or 
nowickij@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Any Impact of Increases in Loan Limits on Rising College Prices Is 
Difficult to Discern: 

Private Student Loan Borrowing Declined After the Loan Limits 
Increased: 

Agency Comments and our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Analysis of the Relationship between Student Loan Limit 
Increases and Tuition: 

Appendix III: Additional Data on College Prices and Student Enrollment: 

Appendix IV: Sample Self-Certification Form for Private Loan Applicant: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Major Aid Programs for Undergraduate Students (Aggregate 
Spending), Academic Years 2006-07, 2008-09, and 2011-12: 

Table 2: Statutory Stafford Loan Limits before and after the 
Increases: Comparison of Academic Years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09: 

Table 3: Changes in Average Private Loan Amount Borrowed by Students 
and Their Families by Sector, Academic Years 2003-04, 2007-08, and 
2011-12: 

Table 4: Selected Laws and Provisions that Increased Consumer 
Protections: 

Table 5: Characteristics of Higher Education Institutions Included in 
Our Interviews, Academic Year 2012-13: 

Table 6: Regression Estimates of the Academic Year 2007-08 Stafford 
Loan Limit Increases and College Tuition and Fees: 

Table 7: Estimated Average Academic Year Changes in Tuition and Fees: 
Academic Year 2007-08 Stafford Loan Limit Increase: 

Table 8: Regression Estimates of the Academic Year 2008-09 Stafford 
Loan Limit Increases and College Tuition and Fees: 

Table 9: Estimated Average Academic Year Changes in Tuition and Fees: 
Academic Year 2008-09 Stafford Loan Limit Increases: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Common Measures of College Prices, Academic Years 2003-04, 
2007-08, and 2011-12: 

Figure 2: Tuition and Required Fees, Academic Years 1999-2012, for 
Full-time Undergraduate Students: 

Figure 3: Enrollment in Degree-granting Institutions of Higher 
Education by Sector and Share of Students, Academic Years 1999-2000 to 
2011-12 for Full- and Part-time Undergraduate Students: 

Figure 4: Confluence of Factors Occurring During Loan Limit Increases: 

Figure 5: Proportion of Eligible Students Who Borrowed at Their 
Maximum, Academic Years 2003-04, 2007-08, and 2011-12, by Stafford 
Loan Type: 

Figure 6: Total Number of Students Using Private Student Loans, 
Academic Years 2003-04, 2007-08 and 2011-12: 

Figure 7: Private Student Loan Origination Volumes before and after 
Federal Student Loan Limit Increases as Reported by Nine Major Lenders: 

Figure 8: Percentage Change in Average Amounts of Private and Federal 
Student Loans Borrowed Between Academic Years 2007-08 and 2011-12: 

Figure 9: In-state Tuition and Required Fees by Region for Full-time 
Undergraduate Students, Academic Years 1999-2000 to 2011-12: 

Figure 10: Out-of-state Tuition and Required Fees by Region for Full-
time Undergraduate Students, Academic Years 1999-2000 to 2011-12: 

Figure 11: Enrollment in Degree-granting Institutions of Higher 
Education by Region and Share of Students, Academic Years 1999-2000 to 
2011-12: 

Figure 12: Enrollment in Degree-granting Institution of Higher 
Education by Attendance Status, Academic Years 1999-2000 to 2011-12: 

Figure 13: Enrollment in Degree-granting Institution of Higher 
Education by Ethnicity, Academic Years 1999-2000 to 2011-12: 

Figure 14: Enrollment in Degree-granting Institution of Higher 
Education by Sector and Ethnicity, Academic Years 1999-2000 to 2011-12: 

Abbreviations: 

CFPB: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: 

Education: Department of Education: 

EFC: Expected Family Contribution: 

FFEL: Federal Family Education Loan Program: 

FICO: Fair Isaac Corporation credit score: 

FRED: Federal Reserve Economic Data: 

HEOA: Higher Education Opportunity Act: 

IPEDS: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System: 

NPSAS: National Postsecondary Student Aid Study: 

PLUS: Federal Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students: 

TILA: Truth in Lending Act: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

February 18, 2014: 

The Honorable Tom Harkin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Lamar Alexander: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable John Kline: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable George Miller: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Education and the Workforce: 
House of Representatives: 

A college education can increase the choices and opportunities 
available to individuals, but rising costs have prompted concerns that 
a college education may be an unattainable goal for some. To help 
students afford the rising cost of college, Congress passed a law that 
raised the ceiling on the amount individual students can borrow 
(referred to in the law as "loan limits") under the federal Stafford 
Loan Program. Although increasing federal loan limits would give 
students more resources to pay for college, there is also concern that 
the availability of this additional resource might present an 
incentive for colleges to charge students more. At the same time, this 
opportunity to borrow more federal loan money might affect students' 
private loan borrowing, which sometimes may have significantly higher 
interest rates and default rates than federal student loans. The 
Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008[Footnote 1] 
mandated GAO to conduct a series of reports over 5 years assessing the 
impact of loan limit increases on tuition and other expenses and on 
private loan borrowing.[Footnote 2] This is our final study in 
response to this mandate. For this study, we addressed (1) to what 
extent, if any, did the Stafford loan limit increases affect tuition, 
fees and room and board prices at institutions of higher education; 
and (2) what have been the trends in private student loan borrowing 
since the loan limits took effect? 

To determine the extent, if any, to which Stafford loan limit 
increases affected college prices, we developed a panel regression 
model--a statistical method where we collected data over time for the 
same colleges to estimate possible relationships among certain 
variables, controlling for the effects of other variables--to examine 
the impact of Stafford loan limit increases on tuition, fees, and room 
and board prices at institutions of higher education.[Footnote 3] In 
order to isolate the effect of loan limits from other factors that may 
influence tuition and other college prices, we controlled for factors 
such as college revenue from state appropriations or endowments, and 
economic variables such as the state-level unemployment rate. To 
determine if there were actual changes in the amounts students 
borrowed in federal Stafford loans before and after the loan limits 
took effect, we supplemented the findings of our panel regression 
model with the most recent data available from the National 
Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) database (academic years 2003-
04, 2007-08 and 2011-12), and trend data (academic years 1999-2000 
through 2011-12) for all Title IV-eligible,[Footnote 4] degree-
granting institutions of higher education from the Department of 
Education's (Education) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
(IPEDS). Using these data, we examined differences in tuition trends 
among four education institutional sectors--nonprofit,[Footnote 5] for-
profit, public 2-year, and public 4-year colleges--and geographic 
regions.[Footnote 6] For public 2-year and public 4-year colleges, we 
also reviewed the annual tuition for both in-state and out-of-state 
students. For both the IPEDS trend data and panel regression model 
data, we analyzed data for undergraduate students--the majority of 
college students--to measure the effect of the two separate loan limit 
increases.[Footnote 7] To provide examples of the role, if any, the 
loan limit increases played in how colleges set prices, we 
supplemented these data with interviews from college officials at 
eight institutions. We selected a nonprobability sample of 
institutions to obtain a mix of each major sector of higher education, 
regions, amount of federal aid received, enrollment sizes, admission 
selectivity levels, and prices of tuition and related fees. Although 
we cannot generalize information from these interviews to the broader 
higher education landscape, we believe that the information from these 
eight institutions provides insight into colleges' perspectives about 
the role of loan limit increases on college prices and federal and 
private student loan borrowing trends. In addition, we interviewed 
federal officials and subject matter specialists, including academic 
researchers. 

With respect to our second objective, we analyzed the trends in 
private student borrowing because comprehensive data from private 
lenders were not available to assess the impact of loan limit 
increases on private student borrowing, and data from individual 
lenders are proprietary. To determine trends in private student loan 
borrowing since the loan limit increases took effect, we reviewed 
aggregate trend data from calendar years 2005 through 2011 for nine 
major private student lenders reported in a 2012 study by the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Education.[Footnote 8] To 
obtain additional information about trends after the loan limit 
increases, we supplemented the CFPB study data with analyses of 
Education's IPEDS data (academic years 1999-2000 through 2011-12) and 
NPSAS data (academic years 2003-04, 2007-08, and 2011-12) about 
private student loan usage and undergraduate borrowing. We also 
reviewed federal laws and regulations that have affected the private 
lending market. We interviewed officials from the same eight 
institutions we selected for research objective 1 and asked about 
private student loan borrowing. We also interviewed three of the 
largest private student loan lenders who participated in the CFPB 
study about the private student loan industry, borrowing trends, and 
the extent to which the increased Stafford loan limits affected 
private student loan borrowing. Finally, we interviewed 
representatives from relevant professional associations, federal 
officials, and subject matter specialists, including academic 
researchers. See appendix I for our detailed scope and methodology 
and appendix II for details on our panel regression model. 

We determined that the IPEDS and NPSAS data are sufficiently reliable 
for the purposes of this report by testing them for accuracy and 
completeness, and by reviewing documentation about the systems used to 
produce the data. Unless otherwise noted, all percentage estimates 
from NPSAS have 95 percent confidence intervals that are within 8 
percent of the estimate itself. Further, all NPSAS dollar estimates 
have 95 percent confidence intervals that are within 8 percentage 
points of the estimate itself. We conducted this performance audit 
from December 2012 to February 2014 in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that 
we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 
evidence we obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

To help students pay for college, several forms of financial aid are 
available through federal, state, institutional, and private sources, 
as shown in table 1. 

Table 1: Major Aid Programs for Undergraduate Students (Aggregate 
Spending), Academic Years 2006-07, 2008-09, and 2011-12: 

Academic year 2012 constant dollars: 

Federal Stafford Loans; 
2006-07: $55.573 billion; 
2008-09: $76.505 billion; 
2011-12: $89.607 billion. 

Federal Pell Grants; 
2006-07: $14.43 billion; 
2008-09: $19.051 billion; 
2011-12: $34.048 billion. 

Federal Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS); 
2006-07: $11.507 billion; 
2008-09: $12.514 billion; 
2011-12: $18.931 billion. 

Federal tax benefits[A]; 
2006-07: $7.41 billion 
2008-09: $11.16 billion; 
2011-12: $20.28 billion. 

Federal veterans grants[B]: 
2006-07: $3.71 billion; 
2008-09: $4.358 billion; 
2011-12: $11.007 billion. 

State grants; 
2006-07: $8.535 billion; 
2008-09: $8.749 billion; 
2011-12: $9.532 billion. 

Institutional grants; 
2006-07: $29.51 billion; 
2008-09: $32.31billion; 
2011-12: $42.65 billion. 

State and Institution loans; 
2006-07: $2.36 billion; 
2008-09: $1.66 billion; 
2011-12: $1.69 billion. 

Private student loans; 
2006-07: 21.39 billion; 
2008-09: 10.73 billion; 
2011-12: $6.44 billion. 

Source: College Board, Trends in Student Aid 2013. 

[A] The latest available data for federal education tax benefits are 
for calendar year 2011. Estimates for 2011-2012 are based on these 
data, and only include the Hope, Lifetime Learning, and American 
Opportunity tax credits. 

[B] Federal veterans grants include payments for postsecondary 
education and training to veterans and their dependents, including the 
Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance program effective for 
academic year 2009-10 (38 U.S.C. §§ 3301-3324) and all programs 
established earlier. Some of these funds also cover living expenses 
and other education-related costs. The Iraq and Afghanistan Service 
Grants program was effective in academic year 2010-11. This program 
provides non-need-based grants for students whose parent or guardian 
was a member of the Armed Forces who died in Iraq or Afghanistan as a 
result of performing military service after Sept. 11, 2001. 20 U.S.C. 
§ 1070h. 

[End of table] 

In academic year 2011-12, about 70 percent of the undergraduate 
students attending college borrowed money from federal or private 
lenders. Before 2010, federal Stafford Loans and PLUS Loans were part 
of the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program as well as the 
William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program. Under the 
FFEL Program, private lenders made federally-guaranteed student loans 
to parents and students. The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act 
of 2009, enacted as a part of the Health Care and Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2010, terminated the authority to make or insure 
new FFEL loans after June 30, 2010.[Footnote 9] At the time, there was 
concern that paying banks to act as middlemen for student lending was 
adding to the cost of student borrowing. A Congressional Budget Office 
study estimated that the government would save over $85 billion over 
10 years if it did the direct lending itself.[Footnote 10] Starting 
July 1, 2010 all Stafford and PLUS loans are originated and disbursed 
directly from the Department of Education under the Federal Direct 
Loan Program. FFEL Program loans disbursed before July 1, 2010 
continue to be serviced according to the terms and conditions of the 
FFEL Program master promissory note the borrowers signed when they 
obtained the loan. 

The Stafford Loan program is the largest source of federal financial 
aid available to postsecondary students.[Footnote 11] In academic year 
2011-12, 35 percent of undergraduate students participated in the 
program, which provided an estimated $89.6 billion to eligible 
students through subsidized and unsubsidized loans.[Footnote 12] The 
federal government pays the interest on subsidized loans while 
students are in school, and students must have a financial need as 
determined under federal law to qualify for this type of loan. Each 
student's financial aid need is determined by subtracting the 
student's expected family contribution (EFC) and certain other 
estimated financial assistance from the total price of attendance. 
[Footnote 13] Regardless of their financial need, students can borrow 
unsubsidized loans to pay for educational expenses and are responsible 
for paying back any interest that accrues on the loan. A student may 
be eligible to receive both subsidized and unsubsidized loans, which 
are generally referred to as a combined loan. 

To help students and their families pay for the rising cost of 
college, Congress first passed a law that raised Stafford loan limits 
for first- and second-year undergraduate students as well as for 
graduate and professional students in academic year 2007-08,[Footnote 
14] and subsequently for all qualified undergraduate students 
receiving unsubsidized or combined Stafford loans in academic year 
2008-09 (see table 2).[Footnote 15] 

Table 2: Statutory Stafford Loan Limits before and after the 
Increases: Comparison of Academic Years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09: 

Annual loan limits for dependent students: 

Class level: 1st Year; 

Academic year: 2006-07; 
Subsidized loan: $$2,625; 
Unsubsidized loan: $$2,625; 
Combined total: $$2,625. 

Academic year: 2007-08; 
Subsidized loan: $3,500; 
Unsubsidized loan: $3,500; 
Combined total: $3,500. 

Academic year: 2008--09; 
Subsidized loan: $3,500; 
Unsubsidized loan: $5,500; 
Combined total: $5,500. 

Class level: 2nd Year; 

Academic year: 2006-07; 
Subsidized loan: $3,500; 
Unsubsidized loan: $3,500; 
Combined total: $3,500. 

Academic year: 2007-08; 
Subsidized loan: $4,500; 
Unsubsidized loan: $4,500; 
Combined total: $4,500. 

Academic year: 2008-09; 
Subsidized loan: $4,500; 
Unsubsidized loan: $6,500; 
Combined total: $6,500. 

Annual loan limits for independent students[A]: 

Class level: 1st Year; 
Academic year: 2006-07; 
Subsidized loan: $2,625; 
Unsubsidized loan: $6,625; 
Combined total: $6,625. 

Academic year: 2007-08; 
Subsidized loan: $3,500; 
Unsubsidized loan: $7,500; 
Combined total: $7,500. 

Academic year: 2008-09; 
Subsidized loan: $3,500; 
Unsubsidized loan: $9,500; 
Combined total: $9,500. 

Class level: 2nd Year; 

Academic year: 2006-07; 
Subsidized loan: $3,500; 
Unsubsidized loan: $7,500; 
Combined total: $7,500. 

Academic year: 2007-08; 
Subsidized loan: $4,500; 
Unsubsidized loan: $8,500; 
Combined total: $8,500. 

Academic year: 2008-09; 
Subsidized loan: $4,500; 
Unsubsidized loan: $10,500; 
Combined total: $10,500. 

Source: GAO analysis of relevant federal laws. 

[A] Students who are 24 years of age or older are considered 
independent. Younger students can also be classified as independent 
under certain circumstances, such as if they are married or are on 
active military duty. 

[End of table] 

Students whose financial need is not fully met by federal assistance 
and the school's own resources (school grants and loans, called 
institutional aid) may turn to private lenders for college funding. 
While the private student loan market is dominated by traditional 
financial institutions such as banks, a variety of other private 
student loan lenders exist. Specifically, in addition to the 
traditional banks, nonprofit lenders, many of which are affiliated 
with states and certain schools, have elected to fund or effectively 
guarantee loans. 

Any Impact of Increases in Loan Limits on Rising College Prices Is 
Difficult to Discern: 

For more than a decade, college prices have been rising consistently 
across most types of institutions of higher education and continued to 
rise after the Stafford loan limits increased, but it is difficult to 
establish if a direct relationship exists.[Footnote 16] Numerous 
events that affected the economy likely influenced rising prices, 
which generally followed a consistent upward pattern across three 
commonly-used measures of college prices (see figure 1).[Footnote 17] 

Figure 1: Common Measures of College Prices, Academic Years 2003-04, 
2007-08, and 2011-12: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 4 vertical bar graphs] 

First loan limit increase 2007-08; 
Second loan limit increase 2008-09. 

Public 2-year: 

Academic year: 2003-2004; 
Net price (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $6,578; 
Total price of attendance (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $7,817; 
Tuition and fees (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $1,421. 

Academic year: 2007-2008; 
Net price (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $6,631; 
Total price of attendance (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $7,691; 
Tuition and fees (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $1,317. 

Academic year: 2011-2012; 
Net price (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $7,293; 
Total price of attendance (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $9,093; 
Tuition and fees (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $1,631. 

Public 4-year: 

Academic year: 2003-2004; 
Net price (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $12,620; 
Total price of attendance (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $15,246; 
Tuition and fees (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $5,303. 

Academic year: 2007-2008; 
Net price (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $13,352; 
Total price of attendance (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $16,360; 
Tuition and fees (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $5,927. 

Academic year: 2011-2012; 
Net price (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $14,497; 
Total price of attendance (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $18,204; 
Tuition and fees (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $6,971. 

Private nonprofit 4-year: 

Academic year: 2003-2004; 
Net price (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $20,773; 
Total price of attendance (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $28,088; 
Tuition and fees (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $17,749. 

Academic year: 2007-2008; 
Net price (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $22,498; 
Total price of attendance (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $30,798; 
Tuition and fees (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $19,589. 

Academic year: 2011-2012; 
Net price (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $23,370; 
Total price of attendance (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $35,148; 
Tuition and fees (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $22,449. 

For-profit 2- and 4-year: 

Academic year: 2003-2004; 
Net price (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $15,116; 
Total price of attendance (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $18,156; 
Tuition and fees (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $9,015. 

Academic year: 2007-2008; 
Net price (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $21,288; 
Total price of attendance (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $23,486; 
Tuition and fees (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $10,986. 

Academic year: 2011-2012; 
Net price (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $16,930; 
Total price of attendance (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $19,805; 
Tuition and fees (in real 2011-2012 dollars): $9,404. 

Source: GAO analysis of National Postsecondary Student Aid Study data. 

Note: The tuition and fees data from the National Postsecondary 
Student Aid Study (NPSAS) displayed in this figure are lower than the 
tuition and fees data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 
System (IPEDS) because the NPSAS data includes part-time students 
whereas the data from IPEDS displays data only for full-time 
undergraduates. 

[End of figure] 

As figure 2 shows, the tuition and required fees that a typical 
student would incur rose at an average annual rate of about 2 to 5 
percent from academic years 2007-08 through 2011-12, following a 
decade-long trend of steady, consistent increases. The one exception 
to this pattern was at for-profit 2-and 4-year institutions, where 
prices decreased across all three measures during that time. 
(see figure 1) That is, for academic years 2007-08 through 2011-12, 
the tuition and required fees decreased at an annual average rate 
of 3 percent.(see figure 2)[Footnote 18] 

Figure 2: Tuition and Required Fees, Academic Years 1999-2012, for 
Full-time Undergraduate Students: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Academic year: 1999-2000; 
Public 4-year: $4,148; 
Public 2-year: $1,766; 
Private non-profit 4-year: $19,719; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: $10,974. 

Academic year: 2000-2001; 
Public 4-year: $4,271; 
Public 2-year: $1,813; 
Private non-profit 4-year: $20,171; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: $12,750. 

Academic year: 2001-2002; 
Public 4-year: $4,393; 
Public 2-year: $1,965; 
Private non-profit 4-year: $20,854; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: $12,643. 

Academic year: 2002-2003; 
Public 4-year: $4,686; 
Public 2-year: $2,034; 
Private non-profit 4-year: $21,510; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: $13,745. 

Academic year: 2003-2004; 
Public 4-year: $5,114; 
Public 2-year: $2,385; 
Private non-profit 4-year: $22,554; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: $14,570. 

Academic year: 2004-2005; 
Public 4-year: $5,433; 
Public 2-year: $2,507; 
Private non-profit 4-year: $23,232; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: $15,017. 

Academic year: 2005-2006; 
Public 4-year: $5,697; 
Public 2-year: $2,543; 
Private non-profit 4-year: $23,558; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: $14,573. 

Academic year: 2006-2007; 
Public 4-year: $5,884; 
Public 2-year: $2,608; 
Private non-profit 4-year: $24,201; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: $15,216. 

Academic year: 2007-2008; 
Public 4-year: $6,063; 
Public 2-year: $2,617; 
Private non-profit 4-year: $24,760; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: $14,189. 

Academic year: 2008-2009; 
Public 4-year: $6,375; 
Public 2-year: $2,553; 
Private non-profit 4-year: $26,004; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: $13,612. 

Academic year: 2009-2010; 
Public 4-year: $6,646; 
Public 2-year: $2,822; 
Private non-profit 4-year: $26,761; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: $13,717. 

Academic year: 2010-2011; 
Public 4-year: $6,860; 
Public 2-year: $2,942; 
Private non-profit 4-year: $27,286; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: $14,747. 

Academic year: 2011-2012; 
Public 4-year: $7,042; 
Public 2-year: $3,124; 
Private non-profit 4-year: $27,810; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: $13,512. 

Average annual rate increase (Academic Year 2007-08 through 2011-12): 

Public 4-year: 5%; 
Public 2-year: 5%; 
Private non-profit 4-year: 2%; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: -3%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
data. 

Note: The tuition and fees for public 2-year and public 4-year schools 
are for in-state students. 

[End of figure] 

This pattern of gradual increases in tuition and fees has generally 
persisted across different regions of the United States, with higher 
overall annual rate increases from academic years 2007-08 through 2011-
12 in the Far West region (average annual rate increase of 14 
percent),[Footnote 19] and lower increases in the Great Lakes and 
Plains regions at 1 and 2 percent, respectively.[Footnote 20] 
Enrollment, which can be sensitive to college prices, was unaffected 
by increases in college prices, and continued an upward trend as shown 
in figure 3, rising to about 18 million students in academic year 2011-
12, with variations by region, student characteristics, and higher 
education sector. Further, over the last decade,[Footnote 21] the 
cohort of college students who are 18-24 has grown substantially, with 
this population comprising about 42 percent of all college students in 
2011. See Appendix III for additional data on college prices and 
enrollment. 

Figure 3: Enrollment in Degree-granting Institutions of Higher 
Education Institutions by Sector and Share of Students, Academic Years 
1999-2000 to 2011-12 for Full-and Part-time Undergraduate Students: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked multiple line graph] 

Academic year: 1999-2000; 
Total enrollment: 12.5 million; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: 364,378; 
Nonprofit 4-year: 2,101,450; 
Public 4-year: 4,759,170; 
Public 2-year: 5,307,960. 

Academic year: 2000-2001; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: 402,891; 
Nonprofit 4-year: 2,154,340; 
Public 4-year: 4,842,260; 
Public 2-year: 6,075,220. 

Academic year: 2001-2002; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: 472,153; 
Nonprofit 4-year: 2,214,190; 
Public 4-year: 4,988,320; 
Public 2-year: 5,996,650. 

Academic year: 2002-2003; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: 518,922; 
Nonprofit 4-year: 2,264,640; 
Public 4-year: 5,161,700; 
Public 2-year: 6,270,550. 

Academic year: 2003-2004; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: 606,105; 
Nonprofit 4-year: 2,308,470; 
Public 4-year: 5,313,230; 
Public 2-year: 6,207,250. 

Academic year: 2004-2005; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: 740,465; 
Nonprofit 4-year: 2,353,330; 
Public 4-year: 5,406,240; 
Public 2-year: 6,249,360. 

Academic year: 2005-2006; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: 848,401; 
Nonprofit 4-year: 2,379,040; 
Public 4-year: 5,512,730; 
Public 2-year: 6,184,000. 

Academic year: 2006-2007; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: 888,909; 
Nonprofit 4-year: 2,414,670; 
Public 4-year: 5,621,560; 
Public 2-year: 6,224,870. 

Academic year: 2007-2008; [Loan limit increases] 
For profit 2- and 4-year: 995,021; 
Nonprofit 4-year: 2,479,690; 
Public 4-year: 5,812,810; 
Public 2-year: 6,325,100. 

Academic year: 2008-2009; [Loan limit increases] 
For profit 2- and 4-year: 1,238,330; 
Nonprofit 4-year: 2,507,250; 
Public 4-year: 5,951,730; 
Public 2-year: 6,640,070. 

Academic year: 2009-2010; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: 1,585,150; 
Nonprofit 4-year: 2,566,600; 
Public 4-year: 6,284,180; 
Public 2-year: 7,101,440. 

Academic year: 2010-2011; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: 1,720,980; 
Nonprofit 4-year: 2,628,720; 
Public 4-year: 6,485,230; 
7,218,040. 

Academic year: 2011-2012; 
Total enrollment: 18 million; 
For profit 2- and 4-year: 1,654,550; 
Nonprofit 4-year: 2,679,020; 
Public 4-year: 6,611,670; 
Public 2-year: 7,062,470. 

Source: GAO analysis of Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
data. 

Note: Academic year 2011-12 average tuition and fees for public 2-year 
and public 4-year schools are for in-state students. 

[End of figure] 

Although college prices went up, we were unable to determine whether 
or not these increases resulted from the loan limit increases because 
of the interference of various economic factors occurring around the 
same time these loan limit increases went into effect. Specifically, 
when the loan limit increases went into effect, the nation was in a 
recession which created one of the most tumultuous and complex 
economic environments in recent history, affecting families' 
employment, income, and net worth (see figure 4). As shown earlier, 
the availability and types of federal and institutional financial aid 
available to students increased around the time the new loan limits 
went into effect (see table 1), also making it difficult to discern 
any effect those loan limits may have had. For example, the dollar 
amounts of Federal PLUS loans, federal tax benefits, Pell grants, and 
federal veterans grants all increased. Further, the amounts of state 
and institutional grants and loans also increased, while the amounts 
of state appropriations for colleges and college endowments decreased. 

Figure 4: Confluence of Factors Occurring During Loan Limit Increases: 

[Refer to PDF for image: concentric circles] 

Outer circle: 2007-2009 Recession; 
First inner circles: Academic Year 2007-2008 and Academic Year 2008-
2009 Loan limit increases; 
Second inner circle: Confluence of factors; 
Core: 
Increases in state and institutional grants; 
Increased amounts of other types of student federal assistance; 
Declines in college endowments; 
Decreases in state appropriations for colleges. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Further, colleges appear to have responded to the economic crisis in 
ways that are difficult to capture in a model. We found some evidence 
of this in our discussion with selected college officials, who 
responded to the economic crisis in different ways. For example, 
officials at a private nonprofit 4-year institution said that despite 
declines in their endowments, they used their general operating and 
annual giving funds to provide more aid to students. In contrast, 
officials at one public 4-year college said that they set their 
tuition so that their students, the majority of whom qualified for 
federal Pell grants, could cover the price of tuition with their grant 
aid. In addition, officials at one public 2-year college described how 
their state board of education would not allow them to increase their 
tuition more than 5 percent each year, while officials at a public 4-
year college said that any public school in their state that increased 
their designated tuition by a certain percentage had to set aside more 
money for financial aid to their students. Finally, Stafford student 
loan borrowing that occurred after the loan limit increases presented 
a mixed picture. The proportion of students taking out the maximum in 
Stafford student loans continued to decline between academic years 
2007-08 and 2011-12 for unsubsidized (24 to 20 percent) and combined 
loans (61 to 58 percent) but not for subsidized loans, which increased 
from 54 to 57 percent in the number of students borrowing the maximum 
loan amount (see figure 5). 

Figure 5: Proportion of Eligible Students Who Borrowed at Their 
Maximum, Academic Years 2003-04, 2007-08, and 2011-12, by Stafford 
Loan Type: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Type of Stafford Loan: Combined; 
Percentage of eligible borrowers: 
Academic year 2003-04: 67%;
Academic year 2007-08: 61%;
Academic year 2011-12: 58%. 

Type of Stafford Loan: Subsidized; 
Percentage of eligible borrowers: 
Academic year 2003-04: 60%;
Academic year 2007-08: 54%;
Academic year 2011-12: 57%. 

Type of Stafford Loan: Unsubsidized; 
Percentage of eligible borrowers: 
Academic year 2003-04: 30%;
Academic year 2007-08: 24%;
Academic year 2011-12: 20%. 

Source: GAO analysis of National Postsecondary Student Aid Study data. 

[End of figure] 

Private Student Loan Borrowing Declined After the Loan Limits 
Increased: 

The landscape of private education borrowing has changed since the 
loan limit increases took effect. Before the loan limit increases, the 
total number of students borrowing private student loans had been 
increasing, rising by 188 percent from 961,356 to 2,764,469 students 
between academic years 2003-04 and 2007-08 (see figure 6). After the 
loan limit increases went into effect, the number of students taking 
out private student loans dropped overall by 52 percent, down to 
1,325,997 students between academic years 2007-08 and 2011-12. This 
pattern persisted across all types of institutions of higher 
education, with the steepest declines at public 2-year (61 percent) 
and for-profit 2-and 4-year institutions (58 percent) over this time 
period, according to Education data. While it is unclear why there 
were steeper declines among these types of institutions, increases in 
the availability of other types of aid may have been a contributing 
factor. For example, officials at one for-profit 4-year institution 
participating in our study told us they increased the amount of 
scholarship assistance available to students. Similarly, the financial 
aid administrator at a public 2-year school told us the school was 
able to increase institutional aid to students because its foundation 
aggressively sought grants to fund scholarships. 

Figure 6: Total Number of Students Using Private Student Loans, 
Academic Years 2003-04, 2007-08 and 2011-12: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Academic year: 2003-2004;
For profit: 149,638;
Private non-profit: 331,308;
Public 2-year: 150,549;
Public 4-year: 329,861;
Total: 961,356. 

Academic year: 2007-2008;
For profit: 739,287;
Private non-profit: 691,54;
Public 2-year: 430,075;
Public 4-year: 903,568;
Total: 2.8 million. 

Academic year: 2011-2012;
For profit: 309,754;
Private non-profit: 363,72;
Public 2-year: 169,285;
Public 4-year: 483,238;
Total: 1.3 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of National Postsecondary Student Aid Study data. 

[End of figure] 

Students also borrowed less private student loan money after the loan 
limit increases, on average about $1,179 less in academic year 2011-12 
than in academic year 2007-08-approximately a 17 percent decrease (see 
table 3). While the decline in the amount students borrowed occurred 
across all higher education institution types, amounts borrowed by 
students attending public 2-year schools (28 percent) and private 
nonprofit 4-year schools (22 percent) dropped the most. In terms of 
average amounts borrowed in dollars, student borrowing at private 
nonprofit 4-year schools showed the largest dollar decline: about 
$2,178. The decrease in the average private loan amount borrowed by 
students at public 2-year schools may have resulted in part from the 
effort by school officials to rein in student borrowing and the 
increased availability of other aid. For example, the financial aid 
administrator at a public 2-year school said they encourage students 
to pursue federal loans first and private loans as a last resort. 
Officials at a private nonprofit 4-year institution said they adopted 
an "interventionist" approach toward students who were considering 
private student loans. These officials said they reached out to 
students who were considering private student loans and, in some 
instances, increased the amount of institutional aid to students so 
that they would not need to take out private loans. Private lenders we 
interviewed also said that they had to rein in student borrowing to 
reduce the risk of loan defaults. One lender said that some lenders 
decreased loans to students at for-profit schools because of low 
graduation rates and high default rates.[Footnote 22] 

Table 3: Changes in Average Private Loan Amount Borrowed by Students 
and Their Families by Sector, Academic Years 2003-04, 2007-08, and 
2011-12: 

Sector: Public 4-year; 
Academic year 2003-04: $6,453; 
Academic year 2007-08: $6,620; 
Dollar difference between academic years 2003-04 and 2007-08: +$167; 
Percent change between academic years 2003-04 and 2007-08: +3%; 
Academic year 2007-08: $6,620; 
Academic year 2011-12: $5,455; 
Dollar difference between academic years 2007-08 and 2011-12: -$1,165; 
Percent change between academic years 2007-08 and 2011-12: -18%. 

Sector: Public 2-year; 
Academic year 2003-04: $4,191; 
Academic year 2007-08: $3,942; 
Dollar difference between academic years 2003-04 and 2007-08: -$248; 
Percent change between academic years 2003-04 and 2007-08: -6%; 
Academic year 2007-08: $3,942; 
Academic year 2011-12: $2,828; 
Dollar difference between academic years 2007-08 and 2011-12: -$1,115; 
Percent change between academic years 2007-08 and 2011-12: -28%. 

Sector: Private nonprofit 4-year; 
Academic year 2003-04: $9,303; 
Academic year 2007-08: $9,899; 
Dollar difference between academic years 2003-04 and 2007-08: +$596; 
Percent change between academic years 2003-04 and 2007-08: +6%; 
Academic year 2007-08: $9,899; 
Academic year 2011-12: $7,721; 
Dollar difference between academic years 2007-08 and 2011-12: -$2,178; 
Percent change between academic years 2007-08 and 2011-12: -22%. 

Sector: For-profit 2-and 4-year; 
Academic year 2003-04: $7,020; 
Academic year 2007-08: $6,713; 
Dollar difference between academic years 2003-04 and 2007-08: -$307; 
Percent change between academic years 2003-04 and 2007-08: -4%; 
Academic year 2007-08: $6,713; 
Academic year 2011-12: $6,006; 
Dollar difference between academic years 2007-08 and 2011-12: -$707; 
Percent change between academic years 2007-08 and 2011-12: -11%. 

Sector: Total; 
Academic year 2003-04: $7,169; 
Academic year 2007-08: $7,048; 
Dollar difference between academic years 2003-04 and 2007-08: -$121; 
Percent change between academic years 2003-04 and 2007-08: -2%; 
Academic year 2007-08: $7,048; 
Academic year 2011-12: $5,870; 
Dollar difference between academic years 2007-08 and 2011-12: -$1,179; 
Percent change between academic years 2007-08 and 2011-12: -17%. 

Source: GAO analysis of National Post-Secondary Student Aid Study data. 

Note: Dollar difference between academic years may not be exact due to 
rounding. 

[End of table] 

The decline in the number of students borrowing private student loans 
paralleled other declines in the private education market. According 
to a study by the CFPB--the agency that supervises large banks and 
nonbanks that make private student loans[Footnote 23]--new loans for 
nine major lenders steadily increased from 2005, peaking in 2008 at 
$10.1 billion. However, in 2009, the calendar year the second loan 
limit increase took effect, new loans decreased 31 percent (dropping 
from $10.1 billion in 2008 to $7 billion in 2009). From 2009 to 2010, 
new loans dropped another 20 percent to $5.6 billion (See figure 7). 

Figure 7: Private Student Loan Origination Volumes before and after 
Federal Student Loan Limit Increases as Reported by Nine Major Lenders: 

[Refer to PDF for image: combine vertical bar and line graph] 

Year: 2005; 
Actual loan volume: $6.6 billion. 

Year: 2006; 
Actual loan volume: $7.8 billion; 
Change from previous year: 18%; 

Year: 2007; 
Actual loan volume: $9.4 billion; 
Change from previous year: 21%. 

Year: 2008; 
Actual loan volume: $10.1 billion; 
Change from previous year: 7%. 

Year: 2009; 
Actual loan volume: $7 billion; 
Change from previous year: -31%. 

Year: 2010; 
Actual loan volume: $5.6 billion; 
Change from previous year: -20%; 

Year: 2011; 
Actual loan volume: $5.7 billion; 
Change from previous year: 2%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau data. 

[End of figure] 

As the average amount of private student loans borrowed by students 
dropped, the average amount of federal education loans at all 
institutions increased (see figure 8). For example, between academic 
years 2007-08 and 2011-12, the average amount of private loans 
borrowed by students at public 2-year institutions dropped by 28 
percent while the average amount of federal loans increased by 16 
percent. At for-profit 2-and 4-year institutions, there was about an 
11 percent decrease in the average amount of private student loans 
borrowed and a 22 percent increase in the amount of federal student 
loans. The trend of less reliance on private student loans and more on 
federal student loans to fund education persisted across all types of 
institutions. 

Figure 8: Percentage Change in Average Amounts of Private and Federal 
Student Loans Borrowed Between Academic Years 2007-08 and 2011-12: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Public 4-year: 
Private loans: -18%; 
Federal loans: 18%. 

Public 2-year: 
Private loans: -28%; 
Federal loans: 16%. 

Private nonprofit 4-year: 
Private loans: -22%; 
Federal loans: 21%. 

For-profit 2- and 4-year: 
Private loans: -11%; 
Federal loans: 22%. 

Source: GAO analysis of National Postsecondary Student Aid Study data. 

[End of figure] 

Factors Contributing to Private Loan Declines: 

Overall, the turmoil in the nation's financial markets and the 
resulting recession set the stage for the declines in private loan 
borrowing and lending, but there were other contributing factors, too. 

* Lender exit. In response to the turmoil in the financial markets, 
some lenders exited the student loan industry altogether, according to 
a study by CFPB. These actions changed the market from one with many 
lenders to a smaller market dominated by a few large lenders. 

* More stringent lending criteria. Lenders responded to the crisis by 
tightening their lending criteria, making it more difficult for some 
students to obtain these loans, according to a study by the CFPB which 
was echoed by lenders and subject matter specialists we interviewed. 
The CFPB study found that in the years leading up to the 2007-2009 
recession when private student lending was increasing, lenders were 
making a higher percentage of loans to borrowers with weaker credit 
qualifications.[Footnote 24] This trend reversed during the recession. 
In the aftermath of the credit crisis and recession, private lenders 
changed their criteria for making student loans. For example, the CFPB 
study found that lenders began to rely more heavily on criteria that 
had been traditionally used to determine a borrower's 
creditworthiness, such as the borrower's ability to repay the loan and 
individual repayment history as reflected by a borrower's Fair Isaac 
Corporation credit score (FICO).[Footnote 25] Many lenders also 
required or strongly encouraged students to have a co-signer for their 
private student loans. While students could still obtain loans without 
a co-signer, lenders said student borrowers with a co-signer are more 
likely to secure a lower interest rate and more favorable loan terms. 
[Footnote 26] 

* New consumer protections. In addition, the fallout from the turmoil 
in the national financial markets in 2008 increased scrutiny of the 
private student loan market, and subsequent statutory changes 
increased consumer protections (see table 4). Enacted in 2008, the 
Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA)[Footnote 27] amended the Truth 
in Lending Act (TILA) and the Higher Education Act of 1965 to add new 
disclosure requirements related to private student loan rates, terms, 
and the availability of federal student loans. For example, it 
provided for a 3-day period after consummation of the loan during 
which a borrower may cancel a loan without penalty[Footnote 28] and 
also provided that a borrower has 30 days after a loan is approved to 
accept the loan, during which time the lender generally cannot change 
the loan rates or terms.[Footnote 29] The new disclosures were 
accompanied by new borrower responsibilities. In an effort to prevent 
over-borrowing, applicants for private student loans must now complete 
a self-certification form that includes a calculation of how much the 
student needs to borrow, and attest that they are aware of the federal 
loan options available to them.[Footnote 30] See Appendix IV for a 
sample self-certification template. Several of the officials we 
interviewed noted that the self-certification forms helped to keep 
students from borrowing more funds than they actually need for 
educational costs. Furthermore, the HEOA amended the TILA to prohibit 
certain practices by private lenders, including revenue sharing 
between creditors and educational institutions.[Footnote 31] (See 
table 4 for more information). 

Table 4: Selected Laws and Provisions that Increased Consumer 
Protections: 

Name of law: Title X of the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) 
(Private Student Loan Transparency and Improvement Act of 2008); 
Selected provisions: 
Extends coverage of Truth in Lending Act 
provisions to private student loans over $25,000[A]; 
Amends Truth in Lending Act (TILA) by requiring disclosures to 
borrower by private student lenders in loan applications, 
solicitations, approvals, and consummations, including information 
related to such topics as: 
* interest rates and type of rate, such as fixed or variable; 
* interest rate adjustments, such as frequency and amount; 
* finance charges, fees, and penalties associated with default or late 
payment; 
* payment deferral options; 
* federal financial aid availability and applicable interest rates; 
Borrower guaranteed 30 days after loan approval to accept rates and 
terms of loan as offered with no changes (except for changes based on 
adjustments to the index used for a loan); 
Borrower granted 3-day right-to-cancel period; 
Includes measures to prevent unfair and deceptive practices in private 
student lending: 
* private student lenders may not: 
- offer or provide gifts to educational 
institutions in exchange for any advantage related to private loan 
activities; 
- engage in revenue sharing with educational Institutions; 
- use the name, emblem, mascot or logo of education Institution; 
-- impose a fee or penalty on borrower for early repayment of private 
student loan. 

Name of law: Title I, Part E of Higher Education Act of 1965, as added 
by section 120 of Higher Education Opportunity Act; 
Selected provisions: 
Among other things, requires institutions and institution-affiliated 
organizations that provide information regarding private student loans 
to: 
* provide borrowers the private 
student loan disclosures required under the Truth in Lending Act; 
* inform borrowers that they may qualify for federal student aid under 
Title IV and that terms and conditions of federal student loans may be 
more favorable than the provisions of private student loans; 
* ensure that the information regarding private student loans is 
presented in a way so as to be distinct from information regarding 
Title IV loans. 

Name of law: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
Act[B]: 
Selected provisions: 
Created a new federal agency--the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
(CFPB)--as an independent bureau within the Federal Reserve with the 
authority to supervise large banks and other entities that make 
private student loans for compliance with the federal consumer 
financial laws and other purposes. CFPB has authority to take 
enforcement action against these entities for violation of federal 
consumer financial laws and to take action to prevent unfair, 
deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in connection with a consumer 
financial product or service. CFPB recently issued final regulations 
that establish its supervisory authority over any nonbank student loan 
servicer that handles more than one million borrower accounts[C]. 

Source: GAO analysis of relevant federal laws and regulations. 

Note: For purposes of these provisions, a private student loan is 
defined as a loan provided by a private student lender that is made 
expressly for postsecondary educational expenses, excluding open-end 
credit, real estate, secured loans, and federal loans made under Title 
IV of the HEA. 15 U.S.C. § 1650(a)(7). 

[A] The Truth in Lending Act provides consumer protections for credit 
and borrowing. These protections include requirements lenders must 
meet when offering credit and loans to borrowers, such as disclosures 
about loan rates and loan terms. See 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. Section 
1022 of the HEOA amended TILA section 104(3), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 
1603(3), to expressly cover private student loans even when the amount 
financed was over $25,000. At the time HEOA was enacted, certain 
credit transactions in which the financed amount exceeded $25,000 were 
exempt from TILA cost disclosure requirements. The exemption amount 
was raised to $50,000 in 2010 by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act. Pub. L. No. 111-203, § 1100E(a)(1), 124 Stat. 
1376, 2111 (2010). 

[B] Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). 

[C] Defining Larger Participants of the Student Loan Servicing Market, 
78 Fed. Reg. 73,383 (Dec. 6, 2013) (to be codified at 12 C.F.R. pt. 
1090). 

[End of table] 

* Proactive school initiatives. Officials at all of the schools in our 
study described a wide range of activities they implemented to raise 
student awareness and understanding of the various types of financial 
aid available to them. Some school officials also described efforts 
aimed at providing students with alternatives to private student 
loans. While most of the schools provided personal counseling to help 
students understand the obligations that come with borrowing private 
student loans, financial literacy training, and a wide range of online 
tools to help students calculate their college costs and financial 
need, they also told us about efforts that were unique to their own 
institutions. For example, officials at one public 4-year university 
described how 80 to 90 percent of their students are eligible for Pell 
grants, which cover much of their costs, and that many students do not 
have the credit scores to qualify for private student loans. Officials 
told us that they kept tuition at a level that would enable students' 
Pell grants to cover the full cost of tuition. Rather than raise 
tuition, school officials said the school made modest increases to 
room and board prices for students who chose to live on campus. 

Officials at another public 4-year university said that they were able 
to hold tuition steady by increasing enrollment. They said that they 
have a multi-year plan to increase enrollment, especially for students 
served through their online education programs. These officials also 
described how they now offer a $10,000 degree to students who pursue a 
Bachelor's degree in the specific field of organizational leadership. 
The program is competency-based rather than semester credit-hour 
based, and features a combination of traditional classroom instruction 
and credit for life learning. The $10,000 cost of the degree covers 
tuition and fees but not room and board, transit, or other 
miscellaneous costs. In addition, officials at both public 4-year 
institutions said that their state boards of education require them to 
keep college prices below a certain designated threshold, and if they 
go above it, they must then increase the amount of institutional aid 
to students. Their states put this policy in place, they said, to make 
college more affordable and reduce the need for students to seek 
private student loans to finance their education. 

Officials at a private nonprofit 4-year institution described an 
aggressive strategy for helping students pay for their education 
without private or federal student loans. According to these financial 
aid administrators, the university has adopted a policy of fully 
meeting each student's financial aid need and that for all students in 
general, they have a no loan policy. To carry out this policy, the 
administrators said the university does not include loans when 
determining a student's financial aid award and has increased 
institutional funding for students through grants and scholarships. 
According to university officials, during the recession they tapped 
into the university's operating funds to ensure sufficient levels of 
grant aid for students. In addition, they said the university has 
changed the way it calculates a student's financial need for purposes 
of institutional aid by eliminating home equity as a factor when 
considering a student's eligibility for institutional aid. The 
elimination of home equity as an asset, school officials said, 
resulted in more students from middle income families qualifying for 
financial aid. 

Officials at all three for-profit institutions we interviewed said 
that keeping costs down is a significant part of their effort to 
reduce students' reliance on loans, similar to the efforts that public 
institutions reported. Officials at one of the for-profit institutions 
participating in our study said they are focusing on reducing costs 
for academically gifted students by increasing merit-based financial 
aid. Students with higher admission test scores and GPAs receive more 
aid than other students. The same institution also recently announced 
that it is offering students in its honors program full tuition for 
their fourth year of school. Officials at another for-profit 
institution told us that the number of its students using private 
student loans had decreased to 11 percent in 2009 and has remained at 
that level. School officials saw this as particularly notable because 
students' private loan usage had been as high as 30 percent in some 
years preceding 2009. School officials told us that students who are 
considering private student loans must participate in an interview at 
the school so that they fully understand the terms and conditions of 
their private loan. During the interview, the student is given 
information about private loan interest rates, and information about 
federal loans. School officials told us they encourage students 
considering loans to exhaust their federal loans before they take out 
private loans. 

Agency Comments and our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education and 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for review and comment. The 
Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
had no comments. 

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 
committees, the Secretary of Education, the Director of the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau, and other interested parties. In 
addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO's website 
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, 
please contact me at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Contact 
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII. 

Signed by: 

Jacqueline M. Nowicki: 
Acting Director Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This appendix discusses our methodology for the study, which was 
framed around two objectives: (1) the extent, if any, that Stafford 
loan limit increases affected tuition, fees, and room and board prices 
at institutions of higher education; and (2) the trends in private 
student loan borrowing since the loan limits took effect. 

For our first objective, we developed a panel regression model--a 
statistical method where data are collected over time from the same 
panel to explore possible relationships among events--to examine the 
impact of Stafford loan limit increases on tuition, fees, and room and 
board prices at higher education institutions. This model is described 
in Appendix II.[Footnote 32] We conducted supplemental analyses of 
Department of Education (Education) data to determine patterns in 
college prices, enrollment, and students' use of federal student loans 
before and after the loan limits took effect. For this objective, we 
also interviewed college officials to better understand the extent to 
which, if any, loan limit increases influenced how they set prices, 
such as tuition, fees, and room and board. 

For our second objective, we analyzed Education data on private 
student loans, reviewed results of a private student lenders survey 
conducted in a study by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
(CFPB), the agency that supervises large banks and nonbanks that make 
private student loans.[Footnote 33] We also interviewed college 
officials about private student loan borrowing. For both objectives, 
we reviewed relevant federal laws, reports, and other information 
relevant to these issues. 

We assessed the reliability of the Education data we used by testing 
it for accuracy and completeness and reviewing documentation about 
systems used to produce the data. We found the data we reviewed 
reliable for the purposes of our analyses. Similarly, we assessed the 
reliability of the CFPB study's private student lender survey data by 
reviewing documentation about systems used to produce the data and 
reviewing the survey methodology. We conducted this performance audit 
from December 2012 to February 2014 in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that 
we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 
evidence we obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Analysis of Education Data on Trends in College Prices, Enrollment, 
and Federal Student Loan Borrowing Patterns: 

To determine trends in college prices since the loan limits took 
effect, we examined 13 years of trend data (academic years 1999-2000 
through 2011-12) for all Title IV-eligible, degree-granting 
institutions of higher education from Education's Integrated 
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), and from the three most 
recent National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) results 
(academic years 2003-04, 2007-08, and 2011-12). We examined this data 
for undergraduate students--the majority of college students--across 
four institutional sectors (nonprofit, for-profit, public 2-year, and 
public 4-year colleges) and geographic regions.[Footnote 34] For 
public 2-year and public 4-year colleges, we also reviewed the annual 
tuition for both in-state and out-of-state students.[Footnote 35] We 
analyzed three descriptors of price: 

1. Tuition and fees: the amount of tuition and required fees covering 
a full academic year charged to students. These values represent what 
a typical student would be charged and may not be the same for all 
students at an institution. Tuition and fees data are weighted by 
undergraduate enrollment. We analyzed these data by sector and by 
region. 

Source: IPEDS and NPSAS data. 

2. Total price of attendance: what a typical student would pay for 
tuition and required fees, books and supplies, room and board, and 
other personal expenses. We analyzed these data by sector.[Footnote 36] 

Source: NPSAS data. 

3. Net price after grants: the total price of attendance minus all 
grant aid received by a typical student. We analyzed these data by 
sector.[Footnote 37] 

Source: NPSAS data. 

To determine patterns in undergraduate student enrollment, we used 
IPEDS to analyze enrollment trends from academic years 1999-2000 
through 2011-12. To determine the characteristics of enrolled 
students, we also analyzed IPEDS data on institutional characteristics 
(geographic region and sector) and student characteristics (attendance 
status and race and ethnicity). 

To determine the extent to which students borrowed Stafford loans at 
their maximum levels in academic year 2011-12, we used NPSAS data. For 
each loan type, we analyzed and compared the proportion of eligible 
borrowers who received their maximum Stafford loan amount in academic 
years 2003-04, 2007-08, and 2011-12. 

Because NPSAS data are based on probability samples, estimates are 
formed using the appropriate estimation weights provided with each 
survey's data. Because each of these samples follows a probability 
procedure based on random selection, they represent only one of a 
large number of samples that could have been drawn. Since each sample 
could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in 
the precision of our particular sample's results as a 95 percent 
confidence interval (e.g., plus or minus 2.5 percentage points). This 
is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 
percent of the samples we could have drawn. Unless otherwise noted, 
all percentage estimates from NPSAS have 95 percent confidence 
intervals that are within 8 percent of the estimate itself. All NPSAS 
dollar estimates have 95 percent confidence intervals that are within 
8 percentage points of the estimate itself. 

Analysis of Data on Private Student Loan Borrowing: 

To determine trends in private student loan borrowing since the loan 
limits took effect, we reviewed aggregate trend data from nine major 
private student lenders[Footnote 38] compiled in a CFPB study from 
calendar years 2005-11. CFPB officials told us that the portfolios of 
these nine major lenders represent about 90 percent of the private 
student loan market. The lenders' participation in the data collection 
was voluntary, and the information was provided to CFPB and Education 
under a non-disclosure agreement and is protected under various 
federal laws as proprietary and confidential business information. 

These private lender data consists of: 

1. Sample loan-level data: records from all private student loans 
originated from calendar years 2005 to 2011 of nine major lenders were 
pooled and analyzed in the CFPB study. The data do not identify the 
specific lender for each loan. 

2. Lender portfolio-level data: quarterly performance data on private 
student loans originated and/or purchased by the nine major student 
loan lenders who provided the loan-level data, aggregated across 
lenders. 

In addition, the CFPB study queried the nine lenders about current 
loan terms and conditions. We reviewed the CFPB study, including data 
appendices that described these data sources and methodology. To 
obtain additional information about trends after the loan limit 
increases, we supplemented the CFPB study data with analyses of 
Education's IPEDS data (academic years 1999-2000 through 2011-12) and 
NPSAS data (academic years 1999-2000, 2007-08, and 2011-12) about 
private loan usage and undergraduate borrowing. We also examined these 
data by institutional sector and for undergraduate students only. 

Interviews with College Officials, Private Student Lenders and Other 
Experts: 

To provide the schools' perspectives about the role of loan limit 
increases on college prices and federal and private borrowing trends, 
we supplemented our data analysis with interviews with college 
officials at eight institutions. We selected a nonprobability sample 
of institutions to represent each major sector of higher education and 
different regions, amounts of federal aid received, enrollment sizes, 
admission selectivity levels, and prices of tuition and related fees 
(see table 5). During these interviews, we spoke with the financial 
aid directors and other school officials with knowledge of how 
tuition, fees, and other prices are set, asking a series of questions 
related to the setting of tuition and other prices and the role of 
loan limit increases in setting tuition and other prices. We also 
asked them a series of questions about private student loans, 
including trends in private student borrowing among their students and 
the type of information they provide students to help inform their 
decision about whether to borrow private student loans. 

We also interviewed officials for three of the largest private student 
lenders, who also participated in the CFPB study's lender survey. We 
asked them a series of questions, including questions about the trends 
in private student lending, how they disclose the terms of their loans 
and the loan certification process, how private student lending has 
changed over time, and whether they expected to see resurgence in the 
private student loan market. 

In addition, we interviewed representatives from relevant professional 
associations, federal officials, and subject matter specialists, 
including academic researchers. 

Table 5: Characteristics of Institutions of Higher Education Included 
in Our Interviews, Academic Year 2012-13: 

Sector: Public 4-year; 
Region: Southwest; 
Percent of Stafford loans distributed to this school's sector: 38-40%; 
Undergraduate enrollment: 6,898; 
Total price of attendance (living on campus): In-state: $20,883; Out-of-
state: $31,413; 
Percent of students admitted: 39%; 
Student demographics: 58% White; 19% African American; 18% Hispanic; 2% 
Asian; 
Percent of students with federal loans: 59%; 
Percent of students receiving institutional aid: 49%. 

Sector: Public 4-year; 
Region: Great Lakes; 
Percent of Stafford loans distributed to this school's sector: 38-40%; 
Undergraduate enrollment: 2,116; 
Total price of attendance (living on campus): In-state: $17,352; Out-of-
state: $24,572; 
Percent of students admitted: 37%; 
Student demographics: 95% Black; 2% White; 1% Hispanic; 1% Unknown; 
Percent of students with federal loans: 87%; 
Percent of students receiving institutional aid: 86%. 

Sector: Public 2-year; 
Region: Rocky Mountains; 
Percent of Stafford loans distributed to this school's sector: 9-11%; 
Undergraduate enrollment: 9,266; 
Total price of attendance (living on campus): In-state: $13,658; Out-
of-state: $16,738; 
Percent of students admitted: Open admissions/all students accepted; 
Student demographics: 76% White; 16% Hispanic; 1% Asian; 1% African 
American; 
Percent of students with federal loans: 22%; 
Percent of students receiving institutional aid: 42%. 

Sector: For-profit 2-and 4-year; 
Region: New England; 
Percent of Stafford loans distributed to this school's sector: 21-23%; 
Undergraduate enrollment: 6,546; 
Total price of attendance (living on campus): $43,630; 
Percent of students admitted: 58%; 
Student demographics: 36% White; 28% Unknown; 24% Black; 8% Hispanic; 
1% Asian; 1% American Indian or Alaskan; 2% Two or more races; 
Percent of students with federal loans: 59%; 
Percent of students receiving institutional aid: [Empty]. 

Sector: For-profit 2-and 4-year; 
Region: Multiple; 
Percent of Stafford loans distributed to this school's sector: 21-23%; 
Undergraduate enrollment: 100,000+; 
Total price of attendance (living on campus): Varies according to 
program; 
Percent of students admitted: Varies according to campus; 
Student demographics: 25% Black; 16% Hispanic; 40% White; 12% Unknown; 
4% Asian; 0.6% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander; 0.7% Native American; 
Percent of students with federal loans: [Empty]; 
Percent of students receiving institutional aid: Varies by campus. 

Sector: For-profit 2-and 4-year; 
Region: Multiple locations throughout U.S.; 
Percent of Stafford loans distributed to this school's sector: 21-23%; 
Undergraduate enrollment: Varies by campus and region; 125,560 overall; 
Total price of attendance (living on campus): Varies by campus; 
Total price of attendance (living on campus): Varies by campus; 
Student demographics: Varies by campus and region; 
Percent of students with federal loans: Varies by campus and region; 
Percent of students receiving institutional aid: Varies by campus and 
region. 

Sector: Private nonprofit 4-year; 
Region: Southeast; 
Percent of Stafford loans distributed to this school's sector: 28-30%; 
Undergraduate enrollment: 10,509; 
Total price of attendance (living on campus): $58,782; 
Total price of attendance (living on campus): 40%; 
Percent of students admitted: 43% White; 23% Hispanic; 5% Asian; 7% 
Black; 
Percent of students with federal loans: 37%; 
Percent of students receiving institutional aid: 69%. 

Sector: Private nonprofit 4-year; 
Region: Mid-East; 
Percent of Stafford loans distributed to this school's sector: 28%-30%; 
Undergraduate enrollment: 5,327; 
Total price of attendance (living on campus): $54,780; 
Total price of attendance (living on campus): 8%; 
Percent of students admitted: 48% White; 19% Asian; 7% Hispanic; 7% 
African American; 
Percent of students with federal loans: 5%; 
Percent of students receiving institutional aid: 60%. 

Source: GAO analysis of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 
System and college reports. 

[A] Data for beginning undergraduate students receiving federal loans 
or institutional aid is from academic year 2011-2012. 

[B] Enrollment data for this higher education institution is as of 
October 2013. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Analysis of the Relationship between Student Loan Limit 
Increases and Tuition: 

This appendix provides the methodology we used to develop a panel 
regression model to analyze the relationship between Stafford student 
loan limit increases and college prices, and the results of that 
analysis. Our panel regression model is a statistical method where 
data are collected over a series of years for the same colleges to 
estimate possible relationships among certain variables, controlling 
for the effects of other variables; in this study, the relationship 
was between increases in loan limits and increases in college prices. 

Methodology: 

Our analysis of the relationship between loan limit increases and 
college prices used a panel regression model, which allows one to 
compare the same group of institutions over multiple years. Our panel 
dataset consists of all Title IV-eligible colleges in the United 
States over an 8-year time span that covers years before and after the 
change in loan limits, which occurred in academic years 2007-08 and 
2008-09. The dataset is divided by the type of institution and the 
control variables used in the regression include college fixed 
effects, economic variables, and college characteristics. We examined 
the following sectors: public 4-year colleges; private nonprofit 4-
year colleges; private for-profit 4-year colleges; public 2-year 
colleges; private for-profit 2-year colleges; and private for-profit 
less-than-2-year colleges. The main source of data is IPEDS, an annual 
survey of colleges conducted by the Department of Education 
(Education) that collects financial characteristics of the 
institutions and is maintained by Education. 

Model: 

The base specification of our model is given by the equation: 

1. CollegePrices(i,t) = B0(i) + B1*LoanLimit(t) + B2*CollegeVars(i,t): 

+ B3*EconVars(t) + B4*Pre-LoanLimitTrend(t): 

+ B5*Post-LoanLimitTrend(t) + e(i,t): 

where the notation means the following: 

* The subscript i represents college "i": 

* The subscript t represents year "t": 

* CollegePrices are the prices for a college in a certain year. We 
used undergraduate tuition and fees and price of attendance (i.e., 
tuition plus fees, room and board, books and supplies, and other 
expenses). We used in-state tuition for public institutions, out-of-
state tuition for private 2-and 4-year colleges, and trade tuition for 
private, less-than-2-year colleges. 

* LoanLimit identifies the period following the increase in the 
Stafford student loan limit. The starting period for the increase in 
limits for both the subsidized and unsubsidized loans was academic 
year 2007-08 (when the limit was increased from $2,625 to $3,500 for 
dependent students), and academic year 2008-09 (when the loan limit 
was increased from $3,500 to $5,500) for unsubsidized or combined 
loans. We used dummy variables that are zero in the years before the 
change in loan limit and one in the years thereafter. The dummy 
variables for the loan limits in academic years 2007-08 and 2008-09 
are used, respectively, in separate equations because the dummy 
variables overlap. The loan limit increases are one-time events. In 
addition to the loan limit increases, these variables also capture the 
effects on college prices of other events that occurred at the same 
time, such as the onset of the 2007-2009 financial crises and 
recession. 

* B0 is a college fixed effect. The fixed effect allows us to control 
for characteristics of the college, which do not vary over time and 
may affect the college prices, but are not observed in our data. For 
example, the college may be located in an expensive region of the 
country. 

* CollegeVars are variables that describe characteristics of a college 
in a certain year. The key variables we used involve revenue, and 
include state appropriations and endowment income. We also included 
the number of undergraduates (in full-time equivalents). 

* EconVars are control variables that vary by year, but not by 
college. These variables reflect general economic conditions and 
include state-level unemployment, housing prices, and a stock market 
index. 

* Pre-LoanLimitTrend and Post-LoanLimitTrend: To capture trends in 
college prices during the periods before and after the loan limit 
increases, two different time trends were used. For regressions 
analyzing the effect of the academic year 2007-08 loan limit increase 
on college prices: 

2. Pre-LoanLimitTrend = (t - 2008)*(1 - LoanLimit), and: 

3. Post-LoanLimitTrend = (t - 2008 + 1)*LoanLimit. 

In Equations (2) and (3), 2008 will be replaced with 2009 for 
regressions analyzing the effect of the academic year 2008-09 loan 
limit increase on college prices. The post-loan limit trend is 
implicitly an interaction term between the loan limit variable and a 
time trend. 

These variables control for trends in college prices that are common 
to all colleges in our sample. Including both variables in our 
regressions allows trends in college prices after the loan limit 
increase to differ from trends in college prices before the loan limit 
increase. However, these variables also reflect changes in other 
unobservable factors, such as economic or political conditions, that 
may cause trends in college prices to differ before and after the loan 
limit increases. 

* e is the error term, which captures potential model 
misspecification, measurement errors, and unobserved variables. 

We divided the sample into sectors based on the control (e.g. public, 
private, and nonprofit, for profit) and level (e.g. 2-year, 4-year) of 
the institution. Specifically, we examined the six sectors where there 
were sufficient observations for meaningful analysis and excluded the 
remaining three sectors because there were too few observations. Thus 
we included public 4-year colleges; private nonprofit 4-year colleges; 
private for-profit 4-year colleges; public 2-year colleges; private 
for-profit 2-year colleges; and private for-profit less-than-2-year 
colleges and excluded private nonprofit less than two-year colleges. 

The analysis was done separately by institutional sector for two 
reasons. First, different institution types may not necessarily 
compete for the same types of students. For example, students with 
lower household incomes are less likely to attend private colleges 
than public colleges. Thus, different sectors may use different 
strategies for the college prices they charge. Second, different 
institution types are likely to be affected by different variables. 
For example, state appropriations are likely to be more important to 
public colleges than for-profit private colleges. This implies that 
the model specification could be different for different sectors. 

Data: 

The main source of data is the IPEDS dataset, maintained by Education. 
IPEDS is an annual survey of colleges conducted by Education which 
focuses on financial characteristics of the institutions. We merged 
the academic year data across years and colleges to form a panel that 
runs from the 2003-04 to the 2010-11 academic year. For certain income 
variables, we used definitions based on work by the Delta Cost 
Project. Now part of the American Institutes for Research, the Delta 
Cost Project published a data map with the goal of standardizing and 
simplifying some of the variables within IPEDS. Both IPEDS and the 
Delta Cost Project definitions have been used in prior GAO work and 
deemed reliable for our purposes. 

We further refined our IPEDS data by excluding certain colleges for 
various reasons. The major exclusion was institutions that did not 
have complete data for all 8 years that we examined. Further, 
responding to the IPEDS survey is required only for colleges that 
participate in the Title IV aid programs. We also excluded colleges 
that were outside the 50 states and the District of Columbia, did not 
participate in Title IV, were not open to the public, or were not 
predominantly postsecondary. We also excluded colleges that were not 
active, were primarily administrative units, or did not have 
undergraduate programs. This resulted in approximately 600 public 4-
year colleges; 1200 private nonprofit 4-year colleges; 400 private for-
profit 4-year colleges; 1000 public 2-year colleges; 400 private for-
profit 2-year colleges; and 900 private for-profit less-than-2-year 
colleges.[Footnote 39] 

We also added data from outside IPEDS to control for the potential 
impact of household wealth on college prices. Specifically, we added a 
state-level unemployment rate from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 
some versions, we added the Case-Schiller composite housing price 
index, which came from Standard and Poor's (S&P), and the S&P 500 
stock index, which we got from Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) of 
the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. 

Results: 

We ran several versions of our model, the results of which are 
presented in tables 6 and 7. Table 6 shows results for the first loan 
limit increase in academic year 2007-08, and table 7 shows results for 
the second loan limit increase in academic year 2008-09--both best 
represent the various models we estimated. Overall, the estimated 
models are statistically significant as indicated by the models' 
statistics (p-values). 

Table 6 shows the results for the academic year 2007-08 Stafford loan 
limit increase for both subsidized and unsubsidized loans on tuition 
and fees (college prices). In each estimated model, the average 
academic year change in college prices for years prior to the loan 
limit increase is given by B4 (the coefficient on Pre-LoanLimitTrend); 
the average academic year change in college prices in the year in 
which the loan limits increased relative to the prior year is given by 
the sum of B1 (the coefficient on LoanLimit), B4, and B5 (the 
coefficient on Post-LoanLimitTrend); and the average academic year 
change in college prices in years after the loan limit increase is 
given by B5, all else being equal. Thus, in the year the loan limit 
increases, the change in college prices resulting from the loan limit 
and the trend effects is the sum of B1 and B5; we could not obtain the 
effects of the loan limit by itself because B5 captures that effect as 
well as the trend effects. As shown in table 7, for example, for 
private, nonprofit 4-year colleges (B1 = -$698, B4 = $661, and B5 = 
$683), the average academic year change in college prices for years 
prior to the academic year 2007-08 loan limit increase is $661, the 
average change in college prices in the 2007-08 academic year compared 
to the prior year is $646, the average academic year change in college 
prices in years following the academic year 2007-08 loan limit 
increase is $683, and the average academic year change in college 
prices related to the loan limit increase is -$15 in the 2007-08 
academic year. Estimates from the regressions analyzing the academic 
year 2008-09 Stafford loan limit increases for only unsubsidized loans 
are shown in table 8.[Footnote 40] 

Table 7 presents the average academic year changes in college prices 
by different institutions in the periods before the academic year 2007-
08 Stafford loan limit increase, the changes in college prices between 
the loan limit year and the prior year, the change college prices in 
the years after the loan limit increase, and the change in college 
prices in the loan limit year attributable to only the events that 
occurred in that academic year. The results show that average academic 
year college prices generally increased across all types of colleges 
before the increase in the Stafford loan limits. In the academic year 
of the 2007-08 Stafford loan limit increase, college prices increased 
for some colleges and decreased for others. The decrease in college 
prices by some colleges is consistent with the opinion that the rapid 
change in economic conditions may have led state legislatures to put 
political pressure on colleges in their states to keep tuition low, a 
sentiment that was echoed in some of our interviews with college 
officials. Furthermore, some of the college officials we spoke with 
said that they held down tuition increases because of the economic 
downturn and financial crises. In the years following the academic 
year 2007-08 loan limit increase, college prices generally increased. 
Although the results appear to suggest that the loan limit increase 
tended to weaken the rising trend in college prices, we cannot 
determine which portion of the change in college prices in the 
academic year of the 2007-08 loan limit increase is attributable to 
the loan limit alone because it is confounded by other events in that 
year as well as the ongoing rising prices. 

The results in table 9 show the average academic year changes in 
college prices before, during, and after the academic year 2008-09 
Stafford loan limit increases. There were generally increases in 
college prices in the academic year of the 2008-09 loan limit 
increase, before and afterward (although there were few cases of 
decreases). Similar to the academic year 2007-08 loan limit increase, 
while the results seem to suggest that the loan limit increase in 
academic year 2008-09 tended to boost the rising trend in college 
prices we could not determine the portion of the increase due solely 
to the loan limit increase because of other confounding effects. Also, 
we could not separate out the effects of the academic year 2007-08 and 
2008-09 Stafford loan limit increases from each other after they 
occurred since the two events overlapped. 

Our results suggest that average academic year college prices 
generally increased across all types of colleges prior to the 
increases in the Stafford loan limits in academic years 2007-08 and 
2008-09, and after the loan limit increases. In the academic year of 
the 2007-08 Stafford loan limit increase college prices increased for 
some colleges while they decreased for others. And in the academic 
year of the 2008-09 Stafford loan limit increase, college prices 
generally increased. But, in the effective years of the loan limit 
increases we could not identify the changes in college prices that 
were due solely to the increases in the Stafford loan limit increases 
because of other events that happened during that time, including the 
financial crisis and the economic recession, as well as the upward 
trend in college prices. 

We took multiple steps to verify our methodology. First, we consulted 
with GAO experts on statistics, econometric modeling, and higher 
education issues. Based on their comments, we made modifications to 
our model where appropriate. Second, we consulted academic literature 
on student financial aid and tuition. Third, we consulted academic 
experts who reviewed our methodology and offered feedback. Fourth, we 
recognize that our analysis has some limitations, including the 
difficulty in isolating the effects of the Stafford loan limits 
themselves, the relatively small number of years used, and our 
inability to include other types of colleges. The results should 
therefore be interpreted with caution. 

Table 6: Regression Estimates of the Academic Year 2007-08 Stafford 
Loan Limit Increases and College Tuition and Fees: 

Sector: Dependent variable; 
Public, 4-year: In-state tuition; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: Out-state tuition; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: Out-of-state tuition; 
Public, 2-year: In-state tuition; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: Out-of-state tuition; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2 yr: Trade tuition. 

Sector: Loan limit dummy; 
Public, 4-year: -95.80 [0.19]; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: -698.44 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: -415.42 [0.32]; 
Public, 2-year: -288.63 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: -1,174.65 [0.03]; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2 yr: -318.78 [0.07]. 

Sector: Pre-loan limit trend[A]; 
Public, 4-year: 119.53 [0.00]; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: 660.53 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: 446.75 [0.00]; 
Public, 2-year: 81.37 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: 566.53 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2 yr: 325.79 [0.00]. 

Sector: Post-loan limit trend[B]: 
Public, 4-year: 278.99 [0.00]; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: 682.73 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: -49.77 [0.72]; 
Public, 2-year: 178.74 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: 30.84 [0.86]; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2 yr: 548.98 [0.00]. 

Sector: State appropriations; 
Public, 4-year: -0.008 [0.021]; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: NA; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: NA; 
Public, 2-year: 0.000 [0.234]; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: NA; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2 yr: NA. 

Sector: Endowment income; 
Public, 4-year: NA; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: -0.0005 [0.11]; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: NA; 
Public, 2-year: NA; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: NA; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2 yr: NA. 

Sector: State unemployment rate; 
Public, 4-year: 82.13 [0.00]; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: 21.53 [0.20]; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: -48.13 [0.42]; 
Public, 2-year: -50.12 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: 14.48 [0.87]; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2 yr: 97.15 [0.00]. 

Sector: Stock market price index; 
Public, 4-year: 0.28 [0.05]; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: -0.152 [0.46]; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: -1.46 [0.08]; 
Public, 2-year: -0.363 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: -2.14 [0.04]; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2 yr: 0.29 [0.39]. 

Sector: House price index; 
Public, 4-year: 5.59 [0.00]; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: -5.65 [0.01]; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: -1.95 [0.82]; 
Public, 2-year: 0.342 [0.70]; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: -6.34 [0.53]; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2 yr: 3.70 [0.27]. 

Sector: Full-time undergraduates; 
Public, 4-year: -0.004 [0.73]; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: -0.046 [0.12]; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: -0.027 [0.00]; 
Public, 2-year: 0.0003 [0.95]; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: -0.300 [0.12]; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2 yr: -0.000 [0.99]. 

Sector: Constant; 
Public, 4-year: 3,908 [0.00]; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: 21,880 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: 18,188 [0.00]; 
Public, 2-year: 3,689 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: 18,029 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2 yr: 9,738 [0.00]. 

Sector: College fixed-effects; 
Public, 4-year: Yes; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: Yes; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: Yes; 
Public, 2-year: Yes; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: Yes; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2 yr: Yes. 

Sector: No. of observations; 
Public, 4-year: 4,564; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: 9,261; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: 2,679; 
Public, 2-year: 7,264; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: 2,155; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2 yr: 6,333. 

Sector: No. of colleges; 
Public, 4-year: 601; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: 1,191; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: 398; 
Public, 2-year: 946; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: 385; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2 yr: 906. 

Sector: Prob > F; 
Public, 4-year: 0.00; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: 0.00; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: 0.00; 
Public, 2-year: 0.00; Private, 
for-profit, 2-year: 0.00; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2 yr: 0.00. 

Sector: Adjusted R-square; 
Public, 4-year: 0.94; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: 0.98; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: 0.72; 
Public, 2-year: 0.93; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: 0.71; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2 yr: 0.86. 

Source: GAO analysis of Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
data. 

Notes: 

The values in square brackets are the p-values of the estimates. 

NA means not applicable. 

[A] The pre-loan limit time trend is equal to 0 in 2007-08 and later, 
equal to -1 in 2006-07, equal to -2 in 2005-06, and so forth. 

[B] The post-loan limit time trend is equal to 0 in 2006-07 and 
earlier, equal to 1 in 2007-08, equal to 2 in 2008-09, and so forth. 

[End of table] 

Table 7: Estimated Average Academic Year Changes in Tuition and Fees: 
Academic Year 2007-08 Stafford Loan Limit Increase: 

Sector: Public, 4-year; 
Academic Year 2007-2008 Stafford Loan Limit Increase[A]: 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, pre-loan limit years 
(2003-04 to 2006-07)[B]: $120; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, loan limit year (2007-
08)[C]: $303; 
Average academic-year change in tuition & fees, loan limit year (2008-
09 to 2010-11)[D]: $279; 
Average academic-year change in tuition & fees from loan limit loan 
limit year (2007-08)[E]: $183. 

Sector: Private, nonprofit, 4-year; 
Academic Year 2007-2008 Stafford Loan Limit Increase[A]: 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, pre-loan limit years 
(2003-04 to 2006-07)[B]: $661; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, loan limit year (2007-
08)[C]: $646; 
Average academic-year change in tuition & fees, loan limit year (2008-
09 to 2010-11)[D]: $683; 
Average academic-year change in tuition & fees from loan limit loan 
limit year (2007-08)[E]: -$15. 

Sector: Private, for-profit, 4-year; 
Academic Year 2007-2008 Stafford Loan Limit Increase[A]: 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, pre-loan limit years 
(2003-04 to 2006-07)[B]: $447; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, loan limit year (2007-
08)[C]: -$18; 
Average academic-year change in tuition & fees, loan limit year (2008-
09 to 2010-11)[D]: -$50; 
Average academic-year change in tuition & fees from loan limit loan 
limit year (2007-08)[E]: -$465. 

Sector: Public, 2-year; 
Academic Year 2007-2008 Stafford Loan Limit Increase[A]: 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, pre-loan limit years 
(2003-04 to 2006-07)[B]: $81; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, loan limit year (2007-
08)[C]: -$29; 
Average academic-year change in tuition & fees, loan limit year (2008-
09 to 2010-11)[D]: $179; 
Average academic-year change in tuition & fees from loan limit loan 
limit year (2007-08)[E]: -$110. 

Sector: Private, for-profit, 2-year; 
Academic Year 2007-2008 Stafford Loan Limit Increase[A]: 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, pre-loan limit years 
(2003-04 to 2006-07)[B]: $567; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, loan limit year (2007-
08)[C]: -$577; 
Average academic-year change in tuition & fees, loan limit year (2008-
09 to 2010-11)[D]: $31; 
Average academic-year change in tuition & fees from loan limit loan 
limit year (2007-08)[E]: -$1,144. 

Sector: Private, for-profit, less than 2-year; 
Academic Year 2007-2008 Stafford Loan Limit Increase[A]: 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, pre-loan limit years 
(2003-04 to 2006-07)[B]: $326; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, loan limit year (2007-
08)[C]: $556; 
Average academic-year change in tuition & fees, loan limit year (2008-
09 to 2010-11)[D]: $549; 
Average academic-year change in tuition & fees from loan limit loan 
limit year (2007-08)[E]: $230. 

Source: GAO analysis of Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
data. 

[A] The estimates are based on the coefficient estimates in Table 1. 

[B] The value equals the pre-loan-trend in Table 1. 

[C] The value equals the sum of loan limit dummy, pre-loan trend, and 
post-loan limit trend in Table 1. 

[D] The value equals the post-loan limit trend in Table 1. 

[E] The value equals the sum of loan limit dummy and post-loan limit 
trend in Table 1. 

[End of table] 

Table 8: Regression Estimates of the Academic Year 2008-09 Stafford 
Loan Limit Increases and College Tuition and Fees: 

Sector: Dependent variable; 
Public, 4-year: In-state tuition; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: Out-of-state tuition; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: Out-of-state tuition; 
Public, 2-year: In-state tuition; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: Out-of-state tuition; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2-yr: Trade tuition. 

Sector: Loan limit dummy; 
Public, 4-year: -403.37 [0.00]; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: -575.75 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: 9.84 [0.98]; 
Public, 2-year: 92.29 [0.07]; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: 761.33 [0.19]; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2-yr: -590.72 [0.00]. 

Sector: Pre-loan limit trend[A]; 
Public, 4-year: 183.62 [0.00]; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: 653.03 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: 293.63 [0.00]; 
Public, 2-year: 42.91 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: 183.90 [0.01]; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2-yr: 402.69 [0.00]. 

Sector: Post-loan limit trend[B]: Public, 4-year: 342.14 [0.00]; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: 658.57 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: -125.43 [0.53]; 
Public, 2-year: 139.80 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: -224.95 [0.36]; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2-yr: 599.64 [0.00]. 

Sector: State appropriations; 
Public, 4-year: -0.008 [0.02]; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: NA; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: NA; 
Public, 2-year: 0.000 [0.24]; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: NA; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2-yr: NA. 

Sector: Endowment income; 
Public, 4-year: NA; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: -0.0005 [0.11]; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: NA; 
Public, 2-year: NA; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: NA; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2-yr: NA. 

Sector: State unemployment rate; 
Public, 4-year: 84.90 [0.00]; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: 17.72 [0.30]; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: -42.84 [0.48]; 
Public, 2-year: -51.94 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: 20.92 [0.82]; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2-yr: 96.15 [0.00]. 

Sector: Stock market price index; 
Public, 4-year: -0.116 [0.50]; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: -0.043 [0.86]; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: -0.813 [0.43]; 
Public, 2-year: -0.123 [0.25]; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: -0.258 [0.83]; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2-yr: -0.085 [0.83]. 

Sector: House price index; 
Public, 4-year: 4.51 [0.00]; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: -5.84 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: 2.02 [0.78]; 
Public, 2-year: 0.97 [0.20]; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: 2.34 [0.78]; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2-yr: 1.96 [0.50]. 

Sector: Full-time undergraduates; 
Public, 4-year: -0.004 [0.69]; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: -0.046 [0.12]; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: -0.027 [0.00]; 
Public, 2-year: 0.000 [0.96]; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: -0.306 [0.11]; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2-yr: -0.000 [0.99]. 

Sector: Constant; 
Public, 4-year: 4,943 [0.00]; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: 22,429 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: 16,512 [0.00]; 
Public, 2-year: 3,222 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: 13,205 [0.00]; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2-yr: 11,144 [0.00]. 

Sector: College fixed effects; 
Public, 4-year: Yes; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: Yes; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: Yes; 
Public, 2-year: Yes; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: Yes; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2-yr: Yes. 

Sector: No. of observations; 
Public, 4-year: 4,564; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: 9,261; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: 2,679; 
Public, 2-year: 7,264; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: 2,155; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2-yr: 6,333. 

Sector: No. of colleges; 
Public, 4-year: 601; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: 1,191; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: 398; 
Public, 2-year: 946; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: 385; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2-yr: 906. 

Sector: Prob > F; 
Public, 4-year: 0.00; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: 0.00; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: 0.00; 
Public, 2-year: 0.00; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: 0.00; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2-yr: 0.00. 

Sector: Adjusted R-square; 
Public, 4-year: 0.94; 
Private, nonprofit, 4-year: 0.98; 
Private, for-profit, 4-year: 0.72; 
Public, 2-year: 0.93; 
Private, for-profit, 2-year: 0.71; 
Private, for-profit, less than 2-yr: 0.86. 

Source: GAO analysis of Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
data. 

Notes: 

The values in square brackets are the p-values of the estimates. 

NA means not applicable. 

[A] The pre-loan limit time trend is equal to 0 in 2008-09 and later, 
equal to -1 in 2007-08, equal to -2 in 2006-07, and so forth. 

[B] The post-loan limit time trend is equal to 0 in 2007-08 and 
earlier, equal to 1 in 2008-09, equal to 2 in 2009-10, and so forth. 

[End of table] 

Table 9: Estimated Average Academic Year Changes in Tuition and Fees: 
Academic Year 2008-09 Stafford Loan Limit Increases: 

Sector: Public 4-year; 
Academic year 2008-09 Stafford Loan limit increase[A]: 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, pre-loan limit years 
(2003-04 to 2007-08)[B]: $184; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, loan limit year (2008-
09)[C]: $123; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, loan-limit year (2009-
10 to 2010-11)[D]: $342; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees from loan limit, loan 
limit year (2008-09)[E]: -61. 

Sector: Private nonprofit 4 year; 
Academic year 2008-09 Stafford Loan limit increase[A]: 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, pre-loan limit years 
(2003-04 to 2007-08)[B]: $653; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, loan limit year (2008-
09)[C]: $736; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, loan-limit year (2009-
10 to 2010-11)[D]: $659; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees from loan limit, loan 
limit year (2008-09)[E]: $83. 

Sector: Private for-profit 4-year; 
Academic year 2008-09 Stafford Loan limit increase[A]: 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, pre-loan limit years 
(2003-04 to 2007-08)[B]: $294; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, loan limit year (2008-
09)[C]: $179; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, loan-limit year (2009-
10 to 2010-11)[D]: -$125; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees from loan limit, loan 
limit year (2008-09)[E]: -$115. 

Sector: Public 2 year; 
Academic year 2008-09 Stafford Loan limit increase[A]: 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, pre-loan limit years 
(2003-04 to 2007-08)[B]: $43; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, loan limit year (2008-
09)[C]: $275; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, loan-limit year (2009-
10 to 2010-11)[D]: $140; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees from loan limit, loan 
limit year (2008-09)[E]: $232. 

Sector: Private for-profit 2-year; 
Academic year 2008-09 Stafford Loan limit increase[A]: 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, pre-loan limit years 
(2003-04 to 2007-08)[B]: $184; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, loan limit year (2008-
09)[C]: $720; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, loan-limit year (2009-
10 to 2010-11)[D]: -$225; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees from loan limit, loan 
limit year (2008-09)[E]: $536. 

Sector: Private for-profit <2-year; 
Academic year 2008-09 Stafford Loan limit increase[A]: 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, pre-loan limit years 
(2003-04 to 2007-08)[B]: $403; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, loan limit year (2008-
09)[C]: $412; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees, loan-limit year (2009-
10 to 2010-11)[D]: $600; 
Average academic year change in tuition & fees from loan limit, loan 
limit year (2008-09)[E]: $9. 

Source: GAO analysis of Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
data. 

[A] The estimates are based on the coefficient estimates in Table 8. 

[B] The value equals the pre-loan-trend in Table 8. 

[C] The value equals the sum of loan limit dummy, pre-loan trend, and 
post-loan limit trend in Table 8. 

[D] The value equals the post-loan limit trend in Table 8. 

[E] The value equals the sum of loan limit dummy and post-loan limit 
trend in Table 8. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Additional Data on College Prices and Student Enrollment: 

Figure 9: In-state Tuition and Required Fees by Region for Full-time 
Undergraduate Students, Academic Years 1999-2000 to 2011-12: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Academic year: 1999-2000; 
Far West: $1,632; 
Rocky Mountains: $3,000; 
Southwest: $2,159; 
Southeast: $2,661; 
Plains: $3,434; 
Great Lakes: $4,833; 
Mid East: $5,129; 
New England: $4,574. 

Academic year: 2000-2001; 
Far West: $1,513; 
Rocky Mountains: $3,043; 
Southwest: $2,366; 
Southeast: $2,333; 
Plains: $3,583; 
Great Lakes: $4,968; 
Mid East: $5,418; 
New England: $4,506. 

Academic year: 2001-2002; 
Far West: $1,540; 
Rocky Mountains: $3,180; 
Southwest: $2,796; 
Southeast: $2,845; 
Plains: $3,761; 
Great Lakes: $5,070; 
Mid East: $5,557; 
New England: $4,599. 

Academic year: 2002-2003; 
Far West: $1,590; 
Rocky Mountains: $3,327; 
Southwest: $2,994; 
Southeast: $3,004; 
Plains: $4,173; 
Great Lakes: $5,418; 
Mid East: $5,723; 
New England: $5,063. 

Academic year: 2003-2004; 
Far West: $2,082; 
Rocky Mountains: $3,515; 
Southwest: $3,251; 
Southeast: $3,290; 
Plains: $4,596; 
Great Lakes: $5,746; 
Mid East: $6,129; 
New England: $5,552. 

Academic year: 2004-2005; 
Far West: $2,346; 
Rocky Mountains: $3,608; 
Southwest: $3,553; 
Southeast: $3,488; 
Plains: $4,957; 
Great Lakes: $6,158; 
Mid East: $6,295; 
New England: $5,908. 

Academic year: 2005-2006; 
Far West: $2,341; 
Rocky Mountains: $3,868; 
Southwest: $3,753; 
Southeast: $3,609; 
Plains: $5,046; 
Great Lakes: $6,265; 
Mid East: $6,286; 
New England: $6,031. 

Academic year: 2006-2007; 
Far West: $2,316; 
Rocky Mountains: $3,944; 
Southwest: $3,971; 
Southeast: $3,720; 
Plains: $5,193; 
Great Lakes: $6,487; 
Mid East: $6,403; 
New England: $6,179. 

Academic year: 2007-2008; 
Far West: $2,321; 
Rocky Mountains: $4,119; 
Southwest: $4,101; 
Southeast: $3,784; 
Plains: $5,244; 
Great Lakes: $6,537; 
Mid East: $6,404; 
New England: $6,264. 

Academic year: 2008-2009; 
Far West: $2,385; 
Rocky Mountains: $4,280; 
Southwest: $3,888; 
Southeast: $3,970; 
Plains: $5,468; 
Great Lakes: $6,770; 
Mid East: $6,542; 
New England: $6,487. 

Academic year: 2009-2010; 
Far West: $2,722; 
Rocky Mountains: $4,457; 
Southwest: $3,979; 
Southeast: $4,189; 
Plains: $5,549; 
Great Lakes: $6,849; 
Mid East: $6,776; 
New England: $6,904. 

Academic year: 2010-2011; 
Far West: $2,995; 
Rocky Mountains: $4,675; 
Southwest: $4,169; 
Southeast: $4,485; 
Plains: $5,631; 
Great Lakes: $6,970; 
Mid East: $6,886; 
New England: $7,066. 

Academic year: 2011-2012; 
Far West: $3,567; 
Rocky Mountains: $5,056; 
Southwest: $4,461; 
Southeast: $4,742; 
Plains: $5,805; 
Great Lakes: $7,073; 
Mid East: $7,125; 
New England: $7,290. 

Average annual rate increase (Academic Year 2007-08 through Academic 
Year 2011-12): 
Far West: 14%; 
Rocky Mountains: 6%; 
Southwest: 5%; 
Southeast: 6%; 
Plains: 2%; 
Great Lakes: 1%; 
Mid East: 3%; 
New England: 4%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
data. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 10: Out-of-state Tuition and Required Fees by Region for Full-
time Undergraduate Students, Academic Years 1999-2000 to 2011-12: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Academic year: 1999-2000; 
Far West: $14,193; 
Rocky Mountains: $11,700; 
Southwest: $10,868; 
Southeast: $11,345; 
Plains: $11,057; 
Great Lakes: $13,867; 
Mid East: $12,538; 
New England: $15,268. 

Academic year: 2000-2001; 
Far West: $14,073; 
Rocky Mountains: $11,701; 
Southwest: $11,025; 
Southeast: $11,425; 
Plains: $11,186; 
Great Lakes: $14,014; 
Mid East: $12,554; 
New England: $15,189. 

Academic year: 2001-2002; 
Far West: $14,235; 
Rocky Mountains: $12,237; 
Southwest: $11,097; 
Southeast: $12,132; 
Plains: $11,684; 
Great Lakes: $14,707; 
Mid East: $12,943; 
New England: $15,445. 

Academic year: 2002-2003; 
Far West: $15,370; 
Rocky Mountains: $12,909; 
Southwest: $11,493; 
Southeast: $12,943; 
Plains: $12,742; 
Great Lakes: $16,121; 
Mid East: $13,527; 
New England: $16,447. 

Academic year: 2003-2004; 
Far West: $16,701; 
Rocky Mountains: $13,801; 
Southwest: $12,311; 
Southeast: $13,597; 
Plains: $13,765; 
Great Lakes: $17,283; 
Mid East: $14,686; 
New England: $17,040. 

Academic year: 2004-2005; 
Far West: $18,143; 
Rocky Mountains: $13,770; 
Southwest: $13,299; 
Southeast: $14,352; 
Plains: $14,594; 
Great Lakes: $18,050; 
Mid East: $14,887; 
New England: $18,410. 

Academic year: 2005-2006; 
Far West: $17,959; 
Rocky Mountains: $14,303; 
Southwest: $13,515; 
Southeast: $14,779; 
Plains: $14,689; 
Great Lakes: $18,420; 
Mid East: $15,014; 
New England: $18,690. 

Academic year: 2006-2007; 
Far West: $17,993; 
Rocky Mountains: $14,758; 
Southwest: $13,975; 
Southeast: $14,885; 
Plains: $14,852; 
Great Lakes: $18,623; 
Mid East: $15,126; 
New England: $19,213. 

Academic year: 2007-2008; 
Far West: $17,639; 
Rocky Mountains: $15,255; 
Southwest: $14,262; 
Southeast: $14,995; 
Plains: $14,859; 
Great Lakes: $18,759; 
Mid East: $15,031; 
New England: $19,483. 

Academic year: 2008-2009; 
Far West: $18,291; 
Rocky Mountains: $15,980; 
Southwest: $15,406; 
Southeast: $15,782; 
Plains: $14,659; 
Great Lakes: $19,635; 
Mid East: $15,422; 
New England: $20,384. 

Academic year: 2009-2010; 
Far West: $19,837; 
Rocky Mountains: $16,389; 
Southwest: $15,852; 
Southeast: $16,242; 
Plains: $15,042; 
Great Lakes: $19,853; 
Mid East: $16,498; 
New England: $21,462. 

Academic year: 2010-2011; 
Far West: $20,521; 
Rocky Mountains: $17,173; 
Southwest: $16,687; 
Southeast: $16,468; 
Plains: $15,459; 
Great Lakes: $20,087; 
Mid East: $16,861; 
New England: $21,817. 

Academic year: 2011-2012; 
Far West: $21,373; 
Rocky Mountains: $17,758; 
Southwest: $16,946; 
Southeast: $16,810; 
Plains: $15,744; 
Great Lakes: $20,335; 
Mid East: $17,495; 
New England: $22,063. 

Average annual rate increase (Academic Year 2007-08 through Academic 
Year 2011-12): 
Far West: 5%; 
Rocky Mountains: 4%; 
Southwest: 3%; 
Southeast: 2%; 
Plains: 2%; 
Great Lakes: 1%; 
Mid East: 4%; 
New England: 3%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
data. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 11: Enrollment in Degree-granting Institutions of Higher 
Education by Region and Share of Students, Academic Years 1999-2000 to 
2011-12: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked line graph] 

Academic year: 1999-2000; [total: 12.5 million students] 
Far West: 2.3 million; 
Rocky Mountains: 0.5 million; 
Southwest: 1.4 million; 
Southeast: 2.7 million; 
Plains: 1.0 million; 
Great Lakes: 2.1 million; 
Mid East: 1.9 million; 
New England: 0.6 million. 

Academic year: 2000-2001; 
Far West: 2.6 million; 
Rocky Mountains: 0.5 million; 
Southwest: 1.5 million; 
Southeast: 3.2 million; 
Plains: 1.0 million; 
Great Lakes: 2.1 million; 
Mid East: 1.9 million; 
New England: 0.6 million. 

Academic year: 2001-2002; 
Far West: 2.7 million; 
Rocky Mountains: 0.5 million; 
Southwest: 1.5 million; 
Southeast: 3.0 million; 
Plains: 1.0 million; 
Great Lakes: 2.2 million; 
Mid East: 2.0 million; 
New England: 0.7 million. 

Academic year: 2002-2003; 
Far West: 2.9 million; 
Rocky Mountains: 0.5 million; 
Southwest: 1.6 million; 
Southeast: 3.1 million; 
Plains: 1.1 million; 
Great Lakes: 2.6 million; 
Mid East: 2.1 million; 
New England: 0.7 million. 

Academic year: 2003-2004; 
Far West: 2.7 million; 
Rocky Mountains: 0.6 million; 
Southwest: 1.7 million; 
Southeast: 3.2 million; 
Plains: 1.1 million; 
Great Lakes: 2.3 million; 
Mid East: 2.1 million; 
New England: 0.7 million. 

Academic year: 2004-2005; 
Far West: 2.8 million; 
Rocky Mountains: 0.6 million; 
Southwest: 1.8 million; 
Southeast: 3.3 million; 
Plains: 1.1 million; 
Great Lakes: 2.3 million; 
Mid East: 2.2 million; 
New England: 0.7 million. 

Academic year: 2005-2006; 
Far West: 2.8 million; 
Rocky Mountains: 0.6 million; 
Southwest: 1.8 million; 
Southeast: 3.3 million; 
Plains: 1.1 million; 
Great Lakes: 2.2 million; 
Mid East: 2.2 million; 
New England: 0.7 million. 

Academic year: 2006-2007; 
Far West: 2.8 million; 
Rocky Mountains: 0.6 million; 
Southwest: 1.9 million; 
Southeast: 3.4 million; 
Plains: 1.2 million; 
Great Lakes: 2.4 million; 
Mid East: 2.2 million; 
New England: 0.7 million. 

Academic year: 2007-2008; [Loan limit increases] 
Far West: 2.9 million; 
Rocky Mountains: 0.6 million; 
Southwest: 1.9 million; 
Southeast: 3.5 million; 
Plains: 1.2 million; 
Great Lakes: 2.4 million; 
Mid East: 2.3 million; 
New England: 0.7 million. 

Academic year: 2008-2009; [Loan limit increases] 
Far West: 3.1 million; 
Rocky Mountains: 0.6 million; 
Southwest: 2.1 million; 
Southeast: 3.7 million; 
Plains: 1.3 million; 
Great Lakes: 2.5 million; 
Mid East: 2.3 million; 
New England: 0.7 million. 

Academic year: 2009-2010; 
Far West: 3.2 million; 
Rocky Mountains: 0.7 million; 
Southwest: 2.3 million; 
Southeast: 4.0 million; 
Plains: 1.4 million; 
Great Lakes: 2.7 million; 
Mid East: 2.5 million; 
New England: 0.8 million. 

Academic year: 2010-2011; 
Far West: 3.3 million; 
Rocky Mountains: 0.7 million; 
Southwest: 2.4 million; 
Southeast: 4.2 million; 
Plains: 1.5 million; 
Great Lakes: 2.8 million; 
Mid East: 2.5 million; 
New England: 0.8 million. 

Academic year: 2011-2012; [total: 17.5 million students] 
Far West: 3.2 million; 18%; 
Rocky Mountains: 0.7 million; 4%; 
Southwest: 2.4 million; 13%; 
Southeast: 4.3 million; 24%; 
Plains: 1.5 million; 8%; 
Great Lakes: 2.7 million; 15%; 
Mid East: 2.5 million; 14%; 
New England: 0.8 million. 4%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
data. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 12: Enrollment in Degree-granting Institutions of Higher 
Education by Attendance Status, Academic Years 1999-2000 to 2011-12: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Academic year: 1999-2000; 
Part-time: 4.9 million; 
Full-time: 7.6 million. 

Academic year: 2000-2001; 
Part-time: 5.6 million; 
Full-time: 7.9 million. 

Academic year: 2001-2002; 
Part-time: 5.4 million; 
Full-time: 8.3 million. 

Academic year: 2002-2003; 
Part-time: 5.5 million; 
Full-time: 8.7 million. 

Academic year: 2003-2004; 
Part-time: 5.4 million; 
Full-time: 9.0 million. 

Academic year: 2004-2005; 
Part-time: 5.5 million; 
Full-time: 9.3 million. 

Academic year: 2005-2006; 
Part-time: 5.5 million; 
Full-time: 9.4 million. 

Academic year: 2006-2007; 
Part-time: 5.6 million; 
Full-time: 9.5 million. 

Academic year: 2007-2008; 
Part-time: 5.8 million; 
Full-time: 9.8 million. 

Academic year: 2008-2009; 
Part-time: 6.1 million; 
Full-time: 10.2 million. 

Academic year: 2009-2010; 
Part-time: 6.4 million; 
Full-time: 11.1 million. 

Academic year: 2010-2011; 
Part-time: 6.6 million; 
Full-time: 11.4 million. 

Academic year: 2011-2012; 
Part-time: 6.7 million; 
Full-time: 11.3 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
data. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 13: Enrollment in Degree-granting Institutions of Higher 
Education by Ethnicity, Academic Years 1999-2000 to 2011-12: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked multiple line graph] 

Academic year: 1999-2000; 
Non-Resident Aliens: 0.3 million; 
African American: 1.4 million; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.1 million; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 0.7 million; 
Hispanic: 0.6 million; 
Unknown: 0.5 million; 
Non-Hispanic White: 8.3 million. 

Academic year: 2000-2001; 
Non-Resident Aliens: 0.3 million; 
African American: 1.5 million; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.1 million; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 0.8 million; 
Hispanic: 1.3 million; 
Unknown: 0.7 million; 
Non-Hispanic White: 8.8 million. 

Academic year: 2001-2002; 
Non-Resident Aliens: 0.3 million; 
African American: 1.6 million; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.1 million; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 0.8 million; 
Hispanic: 1.3 million; 
Unknown: 0.8 million; 
Non-Hispanic White: 8.7 million. 

Academic year: 2002-2003; 
Non-Resident Aliens: 0.3 million; 
African American: 1.7 million; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.1 million; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 0.8 million; 
Hispanic: 1.4 million; 
Unknown: 0.9 million; 
Non-Hispanic White: 9.0 million. 

Academic year: 2003-2004; 
Non-Resident Aliens: 0.3 million; 
African American: 1.7 million; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.1 million; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 0.8 million; 
Hispanic: 1.5 million; 
Unknown: 0.8 million; 
Non-Hispanic White: 9.1 million. 

Academic year: 2004-2005; 
Non-Resident Aliens: 0.3 million; 
African American: 1.8 million; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.1 million; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 0.9 million; 
Hispanic: 1.5 million; 
Unknown: 0.9 million; 
Non-Hispanic White: 9.1 million. 

Academic year: 2005-2006; 
Non-Resident Aliens: 0.3 million; 
African American: 1.8 million; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.1 million; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 0.9 million; 
Hispanic: 1.6 million; 
Unknown: 0.9 million; 
Non-Hispanic White: 9.2 million. 

Academic year: 2006-2007; 
Non-Resident Aliens: 0.3 million; 
African American: 1.9 million; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.2 million; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 0.9 million; 
Hispanic: 1.7 million; 
Unknown: 1.0 million; 
Non-Hispanic White: 9.2 million. 

Academic year: 2007-2008; 
Non-Resident Aliens: 0.3 million; 
African American: 1.9 million; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.2 million; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 1.0 million; 
Hispanic: 1.8 million; 
Unknown: 1.1 million; 
Non-Hispanic White: 9.3 million. 

Academic year: 2008-2009; 
Non-Resident Aliens: 0.4 million; 
African American: 2.1 million; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.2 million; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 1.0 million; 
Hispanic: 1.9 million; 
Unknown: 1.2 million; 
Non-Hispanic White: 9.5 million. 

Academic year: 2009-2010; 
Non-Resident Aliens: 0.4 million; 
African American: 2.3 million; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.2 million; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 1.0 million; 
Hispanic: 2.1 million; 
Unknown: 1.5 million; 
Non-Hispanic White: 9.9 million. 

Academic year: 2010-2011; 
Non-Resident Aliens: 0.4 million; 
African American: 2.5 million; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.2 million; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 1.0 million; 
Hispanic: 2.3 million; 
Unknown: 1.6 million; 
Non-Hispanic White: 10.1 million. 

Academic year: 2011-2012; 
Non-Resident Aliens: 0.4 million; 
African American: 2.5 million; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.2 million; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 1.0 million; 
Hispanic: 2.5 million; 
Unknown: 1.5 million; 
Non-Hispanic White: 9.9 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
data. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 14: Enrollment in Degree-granting Institutions of Higher 
Education by Sector and Ethnicity, Academic Years 1999-2000 to 2011-12: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 4 multiple line graphs] 

Percentage of students in public 4-year: 

Academic year: 1999-2000; 
Unknown: 3.5%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 69.9%; 
Hispanic: 6.7%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.1%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.0%; 
African American: 10.6%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 2.3%. 

Academic year: 2000-2001; 
Unknown: 4.0%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 69.1%; 
Hispanic: 6.9%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.1%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.0%; 
African American: 10.6%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 2.3%. 

Academic year: 2001-2002; 
Unknown: 4.3%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 68.5%; 
Hispanic: 7.0%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.2%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.0%; 
African American: 10.7%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 2.4 

Academic year: 2002-2003; 
Unknown: 4.5%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 67.9%; 
Hispanic: 7.2%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.3%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.0%; 
African American: 10.7%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 2.4%. 

Academic year: 2003-2004; 
Unknown: 4.6%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 66.8%; 
Hispanic: 8.1%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.2%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.0%; 
African American: 11.0%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 2.3%. 

Academic year: 2004-2005; 
Unknown: 4.7%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 66.2%; 
Hispanic: 8.4%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.4%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.0%; 
African American: 11.1%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 2.2%. 

Academic year: 2005-2006; 
Unknown: 4.7%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 65.6%; 
Hispanic: 8.9%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.5%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1%; 
African American: 11.1%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 2.2%. 

Academic year: 2006-2007; 
Unknown: 4.7%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 65.0%; 
Hispanic: 9.3%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.6%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.0%; 
African American: 11.1%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 2.3%. 

Academic year: 2007-2008; 
Unknown: 5.1%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 64.0%; 
Hispanic: 9.6%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.7%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.0%; 
African American: 11.2%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 2.4%. 

Academic year: 2008-2009; 
Unknown: 5.3%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 63.2%; 
Hispanic: 10.0%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.8%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1%; 
African American: 11.2%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 2.5%. 

Academic year: 2009-2010; 
Unknown: 5.3%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 61.9%; 
Hispanic: 10.6%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.7%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1%; 
African American: 11.6%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 2.6%. 

Academic year: 2010-2011; 
Unknown: 6.1%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 61.0%; 
Hispanic: 11.3%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.4%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.9%; 
African American: 11.5%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 2.8%. 

Academic year: 2011-2012; 
Unknown: 6.1%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 59.9%; 
Hispanic: 12.2%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.4%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.8%; 
African American: 11.6%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 3%. 

Percentage of students in public 2-year: 

Academic year: 1999-2000; 
Unknown: 4.2%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 62.9%; 
Hispanic: 12.7%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.1%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.2%; 
African American: 11.6%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 1.4%. 

Academic year: 2000-2001; 
Unknown: 4.7%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 61.7%; 
Hispanic: 13.0%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.2%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.2%; 
African American: 12.0%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 1.4%. 

Academic year: 2001-2002; 
Unknown: 5.1%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 60.1%; 
Hispanic: 13.7%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.3%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.2%; 
African American: 12.0%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 1.6%. 

Academic year: 2002-2003; 
Unknown: 5.5%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 59.3%; 
Hispanic: 13.7%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.3%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.2%; 
African American: 12.3%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 1.6%. 

Academic year: 2003-2004; 
Unknown: 5.3%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 59.7%; 
Hispanic: 13.5%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.2%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.2%; 
African American: 12.6%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 1.5%. 

Academic year: 2004-2005; 
Unknown: 5.3%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 59.1%; 
Hispanic: 13.9%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.2%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.2%; 
African American: 12.8%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 1.4%. 

Academic year: 2005-2006; 
Unknown: 5.5%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 58.6%; 
Hispanic: 14.2%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.3%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.2%; 
African American: 12.8%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 1.5%. 

Academic year: 2006-2007; 
Unknown: 5.9%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 57.7%; 
Hispanic: 14.5; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.4%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.2%; 
African American: 12.9%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 1.5%. 

Academic year: 2007-2008; 
Unknown: 6.2%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 56.7%; 
Hispanic: 15.0; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.5%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.2%; 
African American: 13.0%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 1.5%. 

Academic year: 2008-2009; 
Unknown: 6.5%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 55.4%; 
Hispanic: 15.7%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.4%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.1%; 
African American: 13.2%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 1.5%. 

Academic year: 2009-2010; 
Unknown: 7.9%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 54.1%; 
Hispanic: 15.5%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.0%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.1%; 
African American: 13.6%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 1.4%. 

Academic year: 2010-2011; 
Unknown: 7.8%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 53.3%; 
Hispanic: 16.7%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 5.8%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.19%; 
African American: 14.1%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 1.3%. 

Academic year: 2011-2012; 
Unknown: 7.5%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 52.0%; 
Hispanic: 17.8%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 5.7%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 1.0%; 
African American: 14.6%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 1.3%. 

Percentage of students in private nonprofit 4-year: 

Academic year: 1999-2000; 
Unknown: 6.2%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 69.7%; 
Hispanic: 5.1%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 4.7%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.5%; 
African American: 10.2%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 3.7%. 

Academic year: 2000-2001; 
Unknown: 6.8%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 68.5%; 
Hispanic: 5.2%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 4.7%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.5%; 
African American: 10.6%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 3.7%. 

Academic year: 2001-2002; 
Unknown: 7.5%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 67.5%; 
Hispanic: 5.4%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 4.7%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.5%; 
African American: 10.8%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 3.6%. 

Academic year: 2002-2003; 
Unknown: 7.8%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 66.8%; 
Hispanic: 5.5%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 4.7%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.6%; 
African American: 11.0%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 3.5%. 

Academic year: 2003-2004; 
Unknown: 7.9%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 66.7%; 
Hispanic: 5.7%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 4.7%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.6%; 
African American: 11.1%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 3.3%. 

Academic year: 2004-2005; 
Unknown: 8.1%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 66.3%; 
Hispanic: 5.9%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 4.7%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.6%; 
African American: 11.2%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 3.2%. 

Academic year: 2005-2006; 
Unknown: 8.1%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 66.1%; 
Hispanic: 6.0%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 4.9%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.6%; 
African American: 11.1%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 3.1%. 

Academic year: 2006-2007; 
Unknown: 8.5%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 65.6%; 
Hispanic: 6.1; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 5.0%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.6%; 
African American: 11.0%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 3.2%. 

Academic year: 2007-2008; 
Unknown: 9.0%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 65.9%; 
Hispanic: 6.2; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 5.1%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.6%; 
African American: 11.0%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 3.3%. 

Academic year: 2008-2009; 
Unknown: 9.3%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 63.8%; 
Hispanic: 6.4%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 5.2%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.6%; 
African American: 11.1%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 3.5%. 

Academic year: 2009-2010; 
Unknown: 9.8%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 62.2%; 
Hispanic: 6.7%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 5.2%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.7%; 
African American: 11.5; 
Non-resident Aliens: 3.7%. 

Academic year: 2010-2011; 
Unknown: 10.5%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 61.1%; 
Hispanic: 7.2%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 5.1%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.6%; 
African American: 11.6%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 3.9%. 

Academic year: 2011-2012; 
Unknown: 9.9%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 60.4%; 
Hispanic: 7.9%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 5.1%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.6%; 
African American: 12.0%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 4.1%. 

Percentage of students in for profit 2- and 4-year: 

Academic year: 1999-2000; 
Unknown: 4.5%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 56.7%; 
Hispanic: 13.0%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 5.3%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.9%; 
African American: 17.3%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 2.4%. 

Academic year: 2000-2001; 
Unknown: 11.0%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 50.8%; 
Hispanic: 12.7%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 5.3%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.9%; 
African American: 17.1%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 2.2%. 

Academic year: 2001-2002; 
Unknown: 14.3%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 48.5%; 
Hispanic: 11.9%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 4.8%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.9%; 
African American: 17.7%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 1.8%. 

Academic year: 2002-2003; 
Unknown: 21.1%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 42.9%; 
Hispanic: 11.4%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 4.2%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.7%; 
African American: 17.5%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 2.1%. 

Academic year: 2003-2004; 
Unknown: 15.7%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 44.6%; 
Hispanic: 12.9%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 4.0%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.8%; 
African American: 19.2%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 2.9%. 

Academic year: 2004-2005; 
Unknown: 18.9%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 42.4%; 
Hispanic: 12.0%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 3.4%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.8%; 
African American: 18.5; 
Non-resident Aliens: 4.0%. 

Academic year: 2005-2006; 
Unknown: 17.6%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 43.7%; 
Hispanic: 11.9%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 3.4%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.9%; 
African American: 19.4%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 3.2%. 

Academic year: 2006-2007; 
Unknown: 22.7%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 40.3%; 
Hispanic: 11.3; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 3.1%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.9%; 
African American: 19.3%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 2.4%. 

Academic year: 2007-2008; 
Unknown: 21.2%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 41.3%; 
Hispanic: 11.3; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 3.1%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.9%; 
African American: 20.2%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 2.0%. 

Academic year: 2008-2009; 
Unknown: 20.9%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 40.9%; 
Hispanic: 11.4%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 3.1%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.9%; 
African American: 21.4%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 1.5%. 

Academic year: 2009-2010; 
Unknown: 23.5%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 38.0%; 
Hispanic: 11.7%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 2.6%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.8%; 
African American: 21.7%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 1.1%. 

Academic year: 2010-2011; 
Unknown: 22.3%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 38.5%; 
Hispanic: 12.3%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 2.5%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.8%; 
African American: 22.5%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 1.0%. 

Academic year: 2011-2012; 
Unknown: 18.6%; 
Non-Hispanic White: 39.2%; 
Hispanic: 13.8%; 
Asian/Pacific Islander: 3.2%; 
Native American/Alaska Native: 0.9%; 
African American: 23.2%; 
Non-resident Aliens: 1.2%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
data. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Sample Self-Certification Form for Private Loan Applicant: 

Source: Department of Education. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Jacqueline M. Nowicki, (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Sherri Doughty, Assistant 
Director, Kristy Kennedy, Sandra Baxter, Patrick Dudley, John 
Karikari, and John W. Mingus made significant contributions to this 
report. Also contributing to this report were Jessica Botsford, 
Melissa H. Emrey Arras, Lorraine Ettaro, Mimi Nguyen, and Kathleen L. 
Van Gelder. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 110-227, § 9, 122 Stat. 740, 748. 

[2] Because data were not yet available to respond to the mandate, GAO 
first reported in 2009 with a briefing to Congress. The second report, 
Federal Student Loans: Patterns in Tuition, Enrollment, and Federal 
Stafford Loan Borrowing Up to the 2007-08 Loan Limit Increase, GAO 11-
470R (Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2011), provided descriptive 
information on the first of the two loan limit increases, including 
that there was a decline in the proportion of eligible Stafford loan 
borrowers who borrowed their maximum under the new loan limit 
increase. The first loan limit increase covered fewer students, and 
data were not available on the second loan limit increase at the time 
of that report. 

[3] For our panel regression model, we compared the same cohort or 
group of institutions over multiple years. Our panel consisted of all 
Title IV-eligible colleges in the United States over an 8-year time 
span that covered years before and after the change in loan limits, 
which occurred in academic years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The dataset is 
divided by the type of institution and the control variables used in 
the regression include college fixed effects, economic variables and 
college characteristics. For more information about our panel 
regression model, see Appendix II. 

[4] Programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 
1965, as amended, provide grants, loans and work-study funds from the 
federal government to eligible students. To receive Title IV 
assistance students must be enrolled in institutions of higher 
education that are authorized to operate in the state in which they 
are located, accredited by an agency recognized by the Department of 
Education and certified by the Department as eligible to participate 
in Title IV programs. An institution that enters into a program 
participation agreement with the Department is allowed to participate 
in any of the Title IV federal student financial assistance programs 
(other than the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP) 
and the National Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership 
(NEISP) programs). 

[5] The term "nonprofit" refers to not-for-profit private colleges. 
Private colleges can also be for-profit, so we are making the 
distinction between the two by using the terms "nonprofit" and "for-
profit" in this report. 

[6] Our scope includes institutions of higher education in all 50 
states and the District of Columbia. We grouped 2-and 4-year for-
profit institutions together because about half of the institutions 
that classify themselves as 4-year institutions award mainly 2-year 
degrees. Because we defined our population of institutions of higher 
education as degree-granting, our analysis excludes less-than-2-year 
for-profit institutions that award certificates. 

[7] Congress first passed a law that raised Stafford loan limits for 
first-and second-year undergraduate students as well as for graduate 
and professional students in academic year 2007-08, and subsequently 
for all qualified undergraduate students receiving unsubsidized 
Stafford loans in academic year 2008-09. 

[8] Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Department of Education, 
Private Student Loans (Washington, D.C.: August 29, 2012). For the 
purposes of this report, when we refer to the 'CFPB study' we mean 
this report that was conducted by CFPB and Education. 

[9] Pub. L. No. 111-152, § 2201, 124 Stat. 1029, 1074. 

[10] Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate, H.R. 3221 Student Aid 
and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 
2009). 

[11] Postsecondary students include both graduate and undergraduate 
students. 

[12] Regardless of loan type, borrowers must be either U.S. citizens 
or eligible noncitizens, and be enrolled at least half time in a 
degree or certificate program, among other requirements. 20 U.S.C. § 
1091. 

[13] 20 U.S.C. § 1087kk. The EFC represents the amount the applicant 
and the applicant's family can reasonably be expected to contribute 
toward the applicant's postsecondary education. 20 U.S.C. § 1087mm. 
When we use the phrase "total price of attendance" in the context of 
the legal requirements for the Stafford Loan program, we use it to 
refer to "cost of attendance" as that phrase is defined in 20 U.S.C. § 
1087ll. 

[14] Pub. L. No. 109-171, § 8005, 120 Stat. 4, 158 (2006). As we 
reported in 2011, these increases were the first changes to the 
Stafford loan limits since academic year 1993-94. For undergraduate 
students, these reflect an increase of $875 or $1,000, with the limits 
after the increase ranging from $3,500 to $8,500 depending on a 
student's class level, dependency status, and whether the student was 
receiving a subsidized or an unsubsidized loan. 

[15] Pub. L. No. 110-227, § 2, 122 Stat. 740. 

[16] For more information about our panel regression model and 
analysis of the relationship between Stafford loan limit increases and 
tuition, fees, and room and board, see Appendix II. 

[17] We used three descriptors to study postsecondary prices: tuition 
and required fees, total price of attendance, and net price after 
grants. Total price of attendance is what a typical student would pay 
for tuition and required fees, books and supplies, room and board, and 
other personal expenses, and net price after grants is the total price 
of attendance minus all grant aid received by a typical student. 

[18] While it is unclear why there was a decrease in for-profit 
institution tuition and fees, officials at all three of the for-profit 
institutions we interviewed told us that over the past few years they 
had decided not to raise their tuition and fees, and that they based 
these decisions on how their prices compared to other institutions and 
general affordability for students. 

[19] This high percentage change in the Far West region was largely 
driven by changes in tuition and fees at California's institutions of 
higher education; California had an 18 percent increase in tuition and 
fees from academic years 2007-08 through 2011-12. According to a 
report by California's Legislative Analyst's Office, volatility in 
California state funding support led institutions of higher education 
to tap into funding reserves and take actions to reduce per student 
costs, such as increasing class size, furloughing employees, and 
reducing various campus services and overhead. See California 
Legislative Analyst's Office, The 2011-12 Budget: Higher Education 
Budget in Context (January 19, 2011). 

[20] IPEDS includes these states in the following regions: the New 
England region includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New 
Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; the Mid East region includes 
Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, 
and Pennsylvania; the Great Lakes region includes Illinois, Indiana, 
Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin; the Plains region includes Iowa, 
Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota; 
the Southeast region includes Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, 
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia; the Southwest region includes 
Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas; the Rocky Mountains region 
includes Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming; and the Far West 
region includes Alaska, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and 
Washington. 

[21] The most recent data available cites this figure for the period 
spanning years 2001 through 2011. See U.S. Department of Education, 
National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education 
Statistics, 2012, NCES 2014-015, Chapter 3. 

[22] A CFPB and Education report also showed that students at for-
profit colleges have lower completion and graduation rates and higher 
rates of default on private student loans than students attending 
other types of institutions. For more information, see Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau and Department of Education, Private 
Student Loans (Washington, D.C.: August 29, 2012). 

[23] The CFPB study collected information about all loan originations 
between calendar years 2005 and 2011 from a sample of nine major 
lenders who were active in the industry in 2012. The estimated 2011 
market size when including other lenders not included in the sample 
was $7 billion (origination volume) and $150 billion (outstanding 
volume) (compared to $140.2 billion outstanding for sample lenders). 
See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Department of Education, 
Private Student Loans (Washington, D.C.: 2012). 

[24] See CFPB and Education, Private Student Loans. 

[25] The Fair Isaac Corporation credit score, generally referred to as 
a FICO score, is a score that many lenders use to determine the 
creditworthiness of loan applicants. The score is calculated from a 
borrower's payment history, including late and missed payments, length 
of credit history, type of credit used by the borrower, such as 
installment loans, and other factors. 

[26] See CFPB and Education, Private Student Loans. 

[27] Pub. L. No. 110-315, 122 Stat. 3078 (2008). 

[28] Id., at § 1021(a), 122 Stat. 3483, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 
1638(e)(7). 

[29] Id., at § 1021(a), 122 Stat. 3483, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 
1638(e)(6). 

[30] Id., at § 1021(a), 122 Stat. 3483, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 
1638(e)(3). 

[31] Id., at § 1011, 122 Stat. 3479, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1650. 

[32] For our panel regression model, we compared the same group of 
institutions over multiple years. Our panel consisted of all Title IV-
eligible colleges in the United States over an 8-year time span that 
covered years before and after the change in loan limits, which 
occurred in academic years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The dataset is divided 
by the type of institution, and the control variables used in the 
regression include college fixed effects, economic variables and 
college characteristics. 

[33] Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Department of 
Education, Private Student Loans (Washington, D.C.: August 29, 2012). 
The survey included information from nine major lenders. The 
participating lenders for this CFPB and Education study included: RBS 
Citizens N.A., Discover Financial Services, The First Marblehead 
Corporation, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., PNC Bank, N.A., Sallie Mae, 
Inc., SunTrust Banks, Inc., U.S. Bank National Association, and Wells 
Fargo Bank, N.A. The information was provided to Education and CFPB 
under a non-disclosure agreement and is protected under various 
federal laws as proprietary and confidential business information. 

[34] Our scope includes all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We 
grouped 2-and 4-year for-profit institutions together because about 
half of the institutions that classify themselves as 4-year 
institutions award mainly 2-year degrees. Given that we defined our 
population of institutions of higher education as degree-granting, our 
analysis excludes less-than-2-year for-profit institutions that award 
certificates. 

[35] We did not break down in-district and out-of-district tuition 
data for public 2-year institutions. Most schools that offer programs 
for 2 years likely do not enroll many out-of-district commuters, so 
the population is expected to be too small to yield reliable results. 

[36] We did not analyze NPSAS data by region. 

[37] We did not analyze NPSAS data by region. 

[38] Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Department of 
Education, Private Student Loans (Washington, D.C.: August 29, 2012). 
The participating lenders for this study included: RBS Citizens N.A., 
Discover Financial Services, The First Marblehead Corporation, 
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., PNC Bank, N.A., Sallie Mae, Inc., SunTrust 
Banks, Inc., U.S. Bank National Association, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

[39] The exact number of observations used per sector varies by year 
depending on exactly which variables are used in the model. If a 
college has a missing value for a particular variable in a particular 
year, then the number of observations used in that year decreases. 

[40] Our analysis of college prices based on cost of attendance, for 
the limited number of colleges that had enough data, are similar to 
the reported results for tuition and fees. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
"E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]