1. National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators NASFAA Reauthorization Task Force: A Progress Report

2. RTF Membership 4 Chair: Laurie Wolf, Des Moines Area Community College, IA 4 Mark A. Bandre', Ohio Wesleyan University, OH 4 George Chin, City University of New York, NY 4 Robert Collins, University of Phoenix Central Administration, AZ 4 Norm B. Finlinson, Brigham Young University, UT 4 Karen Fooks, University of Florida, FL 4 Patricia Hurley, Glendale Community College, CA 4 Bonnie C. Joerschke, Purdue University, IN

3. 4 Eileen K. O'Leary, Stonehill College, MA 4 Ed Schroeder, University of Arkansas, AR 4 Jack Taylor, University of Kansas Medical Center, KS 4 Arnold Trejo, Texas A&M University, TX 4 Richard Woodland, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, NJ 4 Staff Liaison, Ms. Joan Berkes, NASFAA, DC 4 Staff Liaison, Ms. Marty Guthrie, NASFAA, DC 4 Staff Liaison, Mr. Kenneth E. Redd, NASFAA, DC 4 Staff Liaison, Mr. Larry Zaglaniczny, NASFAA, DC

4. RTF Mission 4 The mission of the NASFAA Reauthorization Task Force is to produce a set of proposals for the reauthorization of the 4 Higher Education Act that— 4 promote access to postsecondary education, and 4 provide simplicity, consistency, flexibility, and program integrity in the delivery of student financial aid— 4 while representing the diverse needs of Association members.

5. RTF Guiding Principles 4 Promote fairness and equity for students across all sectors of post-secondary education; 4 Promote policies that address the needs of disadvantaged students; 4 Promote accountability; 4 Encourage simplicity; 4 Provide schools with the flexibility to respond to the specific needs of their students; 4 Promote the primacy of need-based aid;

6. 4 Recommend policies that accommodate the diversity of academic delivery models; 4 Promote the use of technology wherever possible; 4 Eliminate statutory requirements that use financial aid to enforce unrelated social policies; and 4 Support recommendations with research and data analysis wherever possible.

7. TimeLine 4 During past year: –Solicit from membership, issues to address –Examine areas for potential changes to HEA –Survey membership to determine opinions –Formulate tentative proposals 4 Currently: –Solicit feedback on proposals from membership

8. TimeLine 4 November –Present proposals to NASFAA Board of Directors 4 December –Modify proposals based on Board’s position (if necessary) –Present NASFAA’s Reauthorization Proposals to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce

9. TimeLine 4 Beyond –Monitor congressional proposals for changes to HEA –Formulate NASFAA response to these proposals –Request membership support and participation in the Reauthorization process, as necessary

10. RTF Issues Identified and Survey Responses

13. Status: Issue Dropped

15. Issue 19: Coordination with IRS [Section 484(q)] Recommendation: Require an IRS Data-Match Demonstration Project Rationale: There is reluctance on the part of the IRS and the Dept. of Education to begin wholesale income data matches. In order to identify the potential costs, savings, levels of error and operational benefits/pitfalls, the secretaries of Education and Treasury should set up a controlled data match demonstration project for a period of three years with plans to implement for all applicants in subsequent years if the demonstration project proves successful

16. Issue 30: Verification [Section 484(q)] Recommendation: Mandate that ED and the IRS implement a verification system of student data by a date certain Rationale: The 1998 HEA reauthorization law authorized ED and IRS to set up a system to verify student financial aid applicant data. Such data elements included adjusted gross income, Federal income taxes paid, filing status, and exemptions reported by applicants (including parents) under this title on their Federal income tax returns for the purpose of verifying the information reported by applicants on student financial aid applications. Some progress has been made in the last four years, but the earliest the Department and IRS could even begin a pilot project would be in 2004-2005. Statutory date for implementation of such a system no later than three years from the date of enactment of this law. Current estimates show savings of some $300 to $800 million by implementation of such a verification system. If the ED and IRS cannot meet this date for implementation, it could petition the Congress for an extension and explain why they cannot implement such a system nine years after Congress first authorized this verification system.

21. Issue 3: Independent Student Definition [Section 480(d)] Recommendation: Retain current definition; clarify that to qualify for independent status as a veteran, the student must have served in the military for the required number of days that would qualify the student as a veteran as defined by the Veterans Administration.

28. National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators NASFAA Reauthorization Task Force: A Progress Report