1 / 49

QA Program Draft Results: Analysis of 2006-07 Data

This session presents the draft results of the Quality Assurance Program's analysis of 2006-07 data, showcasing ways to analyze ISIR data and its impact on aid eligibility. It also discusses improper payments in the Pell Grant program.

gonzalezharold
Download Presentation

QA Program Draft Results: Analysis of 2006-07 Data

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Session #65 Draft Results of Quality Assurance Program Data from Award Year 2006-07 David Rhodes and Anne Tuccillo

  2. Goals • Share draft results of program-wide analysis of 2006-07 data • Illustrate additional ways to analyze ISIR data

  3. Background • Quality Assurance (QA) Program • Participants granted regulatory flexibility to decide which ISIR data they verify • ISIR Analysis Tool

  4. The 2006-07 Analysis • 146 Quality Assurance Program institutions • Each school drew a random sample of at least 350 applicants • Each school verified the ISIR information for the entire random sample of applicants • We analyzed 68,077 records

  5. Previous data collections

  6. See a pattern? • Alternating focus • Random sample of all applicants • Institutionally verified applicants • This year (2007-08) • All QA Program institutions • ISIRS subject to institutional verification

  7. Is analysis over time appropriate? • For individual schools, yes with care • For program-wide analyses the answer “should” be no, but…..

  8. When Looking Across Years Keep in Mind: • The two different populations • Changes to institutional verification criteria between years • Other differences between award years • Percents and averages not counts

  9. Why we “shouldn’t” • QA schools supplying data differ slightly from year to year (146 ≠140 ≠133) • Unmeasured differences in institutional verification across years

  10. Key areas of analysis • Description of population • Critical ISIR fields • How changes affect aid eligibility • Improper payments in the Pell Grant program

  11. Characteristics of Aid Applicants at QA Program Schools 2006-07

  12. Dependent and independent record counts over time

  13. Dependent and independent percentages over time

  14. Percentage of dependent applicants with changes to the most commonly changed ISIR Fields: 2006-07

  15. Percentage of independent applicants with changes to the most commonly changed ISIR Fields: 2006-07

  16. Changes to critical ISIR fields among dependent students over time

  17. Changes to critical fields among independent students over time

  18. Dependent records: percent of ISIR fields experiencing an EFC change - 2006-07

  19. Independent records: Percent of ISIR fields experiencing an EFC change - 2006-07

  20. Comparison of changes to EFC among dependent students with a change to the indicated ISIR field

  21. Comparison of changes to EFC among independent students with a change to the indicated ISIR field

  22. Percentage of dependent records with a change to the indicated ISIR field and a change to a Pell Grant: 2006-07

  23. Percentage of independent records with a change to the indicated ISIR field and a change to a Pell Grant: 2006-07

  24. Comparison of change to a Pell Grant among dependent students with a change to the indicated field

  25. Comparison of change to Pell Grants among independent students with a change to the indicated field

  26. Average EFC change among dependent records with a change to the indicated ISIR field: 2006-07

  27. Average EFC change among independent records with a change to the indicated ISIR field: 2006-07

  28. Average EFC change among dependent students with a change to the indicated field over time

  29. Average EFC change among independent students with a change to the indicated field over time

  30. Average Pell change for dependent records with a change to the indicated ISIR field: 2006-07

  31. Average Pell change for independent records with a change to the indicated ISIR field: 2006-07

  32. Average Pell Grant change for dependent records with a change to the indicated field over time

  33. Average Pell Grant change for independent records with a change to the indicated field over time

  34. Potential improper payments in Pell Grants prior to verification at QA Schools: 2006-07

  35. Improper Payments in Pell Grants before and after school verification

  36. Improper Payments in Pell Grants before and after CPS verification

  37. Lessons Learned • While verification is crucial in some cases, many ISIR records do not experience a meaningful change from their initial transaction value • QA school verification procedures target larger EFC and Pell changes • QA school verification reduces improper payment risks in Pell

  38. What Do the Findings Mean for Schools and FSA? Given that relatively few ISIR records experience a change that affects eligibility for need-based aid, verification efforts should strive to focus on the records that matter.

  39. Two Ways to Focus • Look for the records that matter • Look for the records that don’t

  40. Look for ways to reduce the number of school verified records that experience no or only trivial changes to aid eligibility after verification Suggested Additional Analysis

  41. Additional Analysis • ISIR Analysis Tool reports • Exporting data from the Tool

  42. ISIR Analysis Tool • Key Filters • EFC change < 400 & EFC change > -400 • EFC change > 400 • EFC change < -400 • Institutional verification criteria

  43. ISIR Analysis Tool • Key Reports • Sample summary • Field Increment (EFC or AGI) • Drill down to refine understanding

  44. New Analytic “Recipe” See handout

  45. Exporting Data See handout

  46. Institutional Profiles Comparison of Program-wide and school specific data

  47. 2006-07 Institutional Profile Example of a 2006-2007 Institutional Profile

  48. Profile Differs from Year to Year • 2005-06 provided data of improper payments PREVENTED by institutional verification • 2006-07 provides data on estimated levels of POTENTIAL improper payments in a schools applicant population

  49. Contact Information We appreciate your feedback and comments. We can be reached at: Email: david.rhodes@ed.gov anne.tuccillo@ed.gov

More Related