Mr. MARTIN. That concludes our remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions you have about our specific positions. Mr. FORD. There has been discussion about the specifics of the Office of Education recommendations on these programs. The only difference you have is instead of $17,000 you have $17,500. Mr. MARTIN. It is a small difference, Mr. Chairman. But there was a feeling among several of our members that if we are to maintain true equity in the program that this is needed since the personal asset actually benefits more people in terms of an allowance than does the one for farm or business. Farms and businesses have certain offsets against their income that are not available to typical wage and salary earners. That is why we have recommended the difference. We decided that if we are going to keep some balance and equity for all people in the program, which we subscribe to, then that level needs to be a little higher in order to achieve and insure that kind of equity. Further, when we all look at application data we realize there will be certain kinds of shifts from year to year and that economic conditions will change. So we make assumptions and try to come up with the very best analysis and estimates that we have before us and we are bound to have some slight difference with our models. But I think we are fairly close. They are certainly within normal parameters that would be expected with estimates of this size. Mr. CORNELL. How much of a difference would that $500 make in the number of recipients? Mr. MARTIN I don't have a complete breakdown on that, Mr. Cornell. But I think it would be fairly slight in terms of the numbers that the Office of Education gave to you. If it helped 4,000 or 5,000 students across the country in terms of achieving equitability, then we would support it. Mr. CORNELL. You stressed the need for consideration of the single student with dependent children. Do you have any figures presently? Mr. MARTIN. The data is very difficult to come by for the simple fact that the current models that are used to develop basic grant estimations do not take into consideration factors necessary to delineate between independent single students. We have come up with information recently which Mr. Kornfeld and Mr. Voigt gave you here regarding independent students in general and the percentage of those that are over the age of 23. But the models at the present time do not allow us to go into estimations for those students, and what the total cost will be. We do know they will be much more significant than the kinds of assets changes that we have suggested here in terms of broadening the base for all students. However, to estimate the exact program costs is not feasible at the current time. We feel it is the kind of question that needs to be looked at and information that should be provided to the subcommittee so they can look at the whole independent student question a year hence in making a recommendation. But it is hard to justify this difference in equity when we know what is happening to the current population, and the increasing number of returning single students that have children who are coming back to campus. Mr. CORNELL. That figure struck me before about the age. Still we don't know-probably a higher percentage than those that are married. You don't happen to know those that are single and self-supporting. Mr. MARTIN. That is correct. If we get that information you can be assured that we will be happy to provide it to you. Mr. FORD. The difficulty in dealing with this is that it is really sort of guesswork. We don't know how many of those independents with dependents that you are describing are out there who haven't applied. Mr. MARTIN. We do not at the present time. With independent students I think the evidence would show that they would have smaller asset holdings than do the typical dependent student. I think that is a safe assumption. So an asset reserve for independent students to adjust some inequities might not have to be as high for those individuals as it is for typical married couples or parents of dependent students. Mr. FORD. Thank you very much again. Let me thank you for the tremendous cooperation you and your people have given to the staff of the committee in trying to solve this problem. Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FORD. The committee will stand in recess. [Whereupon, at 4 p.m. the subcommittee adjourned, to renconvene at the call of the Chair.] The Coalition of Independent College and University Students (COPUS) thanks the Subcommittee for this opportunity to comment on the 1978-79 Family Contribution Schedule and on the proposed Office of Education revision of the definition of "independent students." Family Contribution Schedule COPUS applauds the extension of eligibility for student aid through expansion of the assets allowances. While we concur with the recommendations Unfortunately, of the higher education community increasing personal assets to $17,500, in the personal assets allowance would have more profoundly expanded student eligibility for student financial assistance to the middle class. Office of Education Proposed Revision of the Definition of Independent Students As members of the Subcommittee are aware, the Office of Education has proposed changes in the definition of "independent students." The Coalition would like to repeat the testimony we gave at the August 8, 1977 Washington, D.C. hearing on the change. The Coalition's recommendations are as follows: 1. 2. 3. We agree with the more realistic change of two to six weeks in the residency requirement. We recommend an increase to $750 from $600 in the allowable con- We oppose the extension of the Federal tax exemption rule to apply for two calendar years prior to the year for which aid is requested, rather than the present one calendar year rule. |