###-LIST OF TABLES
Table
A-1 Familiarity or use of selected financial aid services and products, by institution and respondent characteristics: United States
A-2 Electronic processing of financial aid at postsecondary education institutions, by institution characteristics: United States
A-3 Selected evaluations of ED's financial aid services to postsecondary education institutions, by institution and respondent characteristics: United States
Table A-1.--Familiarity or use of selected financial aid services and products, by institution and respondent characteristics: United States
Not familiar with Made no use of Deliv- Elec- Campus- Renew- FISAP Elec- ED's CPS Pell Institution/ ery tronic Based al soft- tronic funds User Grant respondent System pro- state appli- ware Blue funds manage- Ser- Finan- characteristic Train- ces- rep cation Book trans- ment vices cial ing sing state process fer process Hot- Manage- confer- repre- line ment ences senta- Special- tives ists Total 16 49 48 9 31 20 25 25 65 67 Institution type
Research/doctoral 4 38 33 1 2 10 23 16 45 58 Comprehensive 6 39 20 0 13 17 21 17 45 50 Liberal arts 8 54 27 0 3 12 16 10 63 70 Two-year 8 44 34 3 16 20 26 23 71 60 Specialized 14 53 36 4 8 26 39 24 57 65 Less-than-2-year 27 54 70 19 59 22 25 31 71 76 Control
Public 8 40 36 2 14 20 28 24 61 56 Private, 12 53 29 2 11 20 25 18 60 67 nonprofit Private, 25 52 67 19 56 20 23 29 72 76 for-profit Office responding
Financial aid 15 50 45 7 30 22 27 27 63 66 Business * * 46 * * 10 13 8 * 73 Other 28 42 69 25 44 27 34 40 77 75 Experience with
federal aid
5 years or less 30 60 64 9 38 27 30 30 76 76 6-10 years 16 59 48 16 38 22 27 25 67 69 Over 10 years 10 39 40 6 23 14 22 22 59 63
*Too few cases for reliable estimates.
SOURCE: Higher Education Surveys, Postsecondary Education Institutions' Satisfaction with Student Financial Assistance Programs (HES 20), U.S. Department of Education, 1996 (survey conducted in 1995)
Table A-2.--Electronic processing of financial aid at postsecondary education institutions, by institution characteristics: United States
Institutions' support of Computer configuration for electronic processing processing financial aid Very Some- Only Not Indivi- Local Stand- Main- No Institution support- what limited at all dual area alone frame comput- characteristic ive support- re- support- micro- net- main- with ers ive sources ive comput- work frame termi- used avail- ers nals able Total 55 27 15 3 32 24 6 27 10 Institution type
Research/doctoral 63 27 10 0 2 16 7 74 1 Comprehensive 54 33 12 1 8 18 4 69 1 Liberal arts 45 38 17 0 18 39 4 37 2 Two-year 50 31 18 -- 21 27 6 39 7 Specialized 49 20 24 7 37 36 2 20 6 Less-than-2-year 61 22 12 5 50 20 8 6 17 Control
Public 49 31 19 1 16 22 4 51 7 Private, 47 31 18 3 22 30 6 35 7 nonprofit Private, 65 22 10 3 50 22 8 6 14 for-profit
--Less than 0.5 percent.
NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding.
SOURCE: Higher Education Surveys, Postsecondary Education Institutions' Satisfaction with Student Financial Assistance Programs (HES 20), U.S. Department of Education, 1996 (survey conducted in 1995)
Table A-3.--Selected evaluations of ED's financial aid services to postsecondary education institutions, by institution and respondent characteristics: United States
SFA Handbook Verification Guide Blue Book Institution/ Meets Gets Guide- Meets Gets Guide- Clearly Meets Well Easy to Gets Guide- respondent all timely lines all timely lines all organiz use timely lines characteristic infor- updates easy infor- updates easy written infor- ed updates easy mation to mation to mation to needs imple- needs imple- needs imple- ment ment ment Total 71 52 60 79 61 72 73 64 73 69 49 59 Institution type Research/doctoral 59 34 41 66 33 48 74 59 72 62 35 46 Comprehensive 71 46 54 74 50 69 76 61 77 72 41 53 Liberal arts 74 46 57 86 53 70 64 52 66 65 44 56 Two-year 61 47 56 73 58 70 71 63 75 70 46 58 Specialized 78 47 60 87 59 76 82 72 85 80 56 64 Less-than-2-year 76 60 67 82 69 77 73 67 71 67 54 62 Control
Public 65 48 54 74 54 67 71 60 72 67 45 53 Private, 69 49 55 82 56 70 73 63 74 71 45 57 nonprofit Private, 77 57 68 81 68 77 74 67 73 68 54 64 for-profit Office responding
Financial aid 72 52 61 81 60 74 75 68 77 72 53 63 Business * * * * * * 69 53 66 59 38 46 Other 68 64 66 72 67 66 66 63 65 65 49 62 Experience with
federal aid
5 years or less 79 65 71 88 70 81 74 68 73 71 56 61 6-10 years 67 50 61 80 67 73 69 62 71 67 44 61 Over 10 years 69 47 55 75 53 68 74 63 74 68 48 57
*Too few cases for a reliable estimate.
SOURCE: Higher Education Surveys, Postsecondary Education Institutions' Satisfaction with Student Financial Assistance Programs (HES 20), U.S. Department of Education, 1996 (survey conducted in 1995).
The Higher Education Surveys (HES) system was established to conduct brief surveys of higher education institutions on topics of interest to federal policymakers and the education community. The system is sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education, and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
HES questionnaires typically request a limited amount of readily accessible data from a subsample of institutions in the HES panel, which is a nationally representative sample of 1,155 colleges and universities in the United States and territories. Each institution in the panel has identified a HES campus representative, who serves as survey coordinator. The campus representative facilitates data collection by identifying the appropriate respondent for each survey and distributing the questionnaire to that person.
This mail survey was conducted at the request of the U.S. Department of Education to determine the level of satisfaction of postsecondary education institutions with the services and products provided to help the institutions administer federal financial assistance programs.
The sample for this survey consisted of half of the HES panel, along with a supplementary sample of 407 less-than-2-year institutions, resulting in a mailing to 971 institutions. The inclusion of less-than-2-year institutions substantially changes the sample from typical HES surveys; about 3,100 institutions are higher education institutions, while 2,400 institutions (44 percent of the total) are less-than-2-year institutions that are eligible for federal financial aid (i.e., Pell Grants or Stafford loans). Since less-than-2-year institutions tended to be more satisfied with ED's customer assistance than other institutions, the inclusion of less-than-2-year institutions generally increased the levels of satisfaction that were found by the survey.
The questionnaire was mailed on July 31, 1995, and telephone followup for nonresponse was begun on August 28, 1995. Completed questionnaires were examined for internal inconsistencies or missing data, with telephone followup to verify the information in question. Data collection ended on October 20, 1995. Data were adjusted for questionnaire nonresponse and weighted to national totals.
The overall response rate was 93 percent, based on 774 responses from 835 eligible institutions. The response rates were 90 percent for for-profit institutions, 94 percent for private institutions, 94 percent for public institutions, and by type of institution ranged from 91 percent at comprehensive institutions to 95 percent at doctoral institutions.
Only three questionnaire items received response rates lower than 98 percent; these were questions 10 (93 percent), 21a (97 percent), and 32 (96 percent). Given these high item response rates, the response may be interpreted as accurately representing the responses of the sampled institutions.
Reliability of Survey Estimates
The findings presented in this report are estimates based on the sample from the HES panel and, consequently, are subject to sampling variability. If the questionnaire had been sent to a different sample, the responses would not have been identical; some figures might have been higher, while others might have been lower. The standard error is a measure of the variability due to sampling when estimating a statistic. It indicates how much variability there is in the population of possible estimates of a parameter for a given sample size. Standard errors can be used as a measure of the precision expected from a particular sample.If all possible samples were surveyed under similar conditions, intervals of 1.96 standard errors below to 1.96 standard errors above a particular statistic would include the true population parameter being estimated in about 95 percent of the samples. This is a 95 percent confidence interval. For example, the estimated percentage reporting that they agreed (including those who slightly agreed and those who strongly agreed) that they were pleased with ED's assistance in administering the programs is 73.0, and the estimated standard error is 2.3. The 95 percent confidence interval for this statistic extends from 73.0 - (2.3 times 1.96) to 73.0 + (2.3 times 1.96), or from 68.5 to 77.5 percent. This means one can be 95 percent confident that this interval contains the true population value. Estimates of standard errors for the estimates were computed using a replication technique known as jackknife replication. Some key statistics and their estimated standard errors are shown in Appendix Table B-1.
Table B-1.--Selected standard errors, by institution and respondent characteristics: United States
Institution/ Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage respondent agreeing agreeing agreeing unfamiliar agreeing characteristic that that that Blue with they are Student Verification Book is EP's funds pleased Financial Guide is well management overall Assistance updated in organized process with ED's Handbook timely assistance meets all manner information needs Esti- Stan- Esti- Stan- Esti- Stan- Esti- Stan- Esti- Stan- mate dard mate dard mate dard mate dard mate dard error error error error error Total 71.2 2.1 60.5 2.5 73.1 2.3 24.6 2.5 73.0 2.3 Institution type Research/doctoral 59.5 5.0 33.5 2.8 71.9 3.1 16.4 3.7 66.5 4.0 Comprehensive 70.8 4.6 49.8 5.0 76.6 3.6 17.4 3.2 78.6 4.0 Liberal arts 73.9 5.4 53.5 5.5 66.4 4.0 9.8 3.7 76.0 4.0 Two-year 60.8 4.1 57.8 4.1 75.3 4.1 23.3 3.6 73.7 3.1 Specialized 78.0 6.6 58.8 7.2 84.8 7.5 24.1 7.5 76.9 7.1 Less-than-2-year 76.4 4.0 68.8 5.0 70.9 5.0 31.2 4.3 70.6 4.6 Control Public 64.5 3.0 53.7 3.1 72.3 2.6 24.0 2.8 73.0 2.6 Private, 68.5 3.0 56.0 3.0 74.1 2.7 17.7 2.8 75.1 2.7 nonprofit Private, 77.4 4.1 68.1 4.9 72.9 5.2 29.2 4.8 71.7 4.9 for-profit Office responding Financial aid 72.5 2.0 59.7 2.4 76.6 2.7 27.1 3.1 75.5 2.0 Business * * * * 66.2 4.7 8.2 2.7 * * Other 68.1 11.5 67.2 9.0 65.2 10.6 40.2 8.9 57.6 8.7 Experience with federal aid 5 years or less 79.2 4.3 69.7 5.6 73.1 5.2 29.5 5.8 76.7 4.7 6-10 years 67.4 4.6 66.7 4.7 71.3 5.7 25.4 3.4 76.5 4.0 Over 10 years 69.3 2.6 53.0 2.9 73.5 3.5 21.7 3.2 69.3 3.1
*Too few cases for a reliable estimate.
SOURCE: Higher Education Surveys, Postsecondary Education Institutions' Satisfaction with Student Financial Assistance Programs (HES 20), U.S. Department of Education, 1996 (survey conducted in 1995).
For categorical data, relationships between variables with two or more levels have been tested in a two-way analysis, using chi-square tests at the .05 level of significance, adjusted for average design effect. If the overall chi-square test was significant, it was followed with tests using a Bonferroni t statistic, which maintained an overall 95 percent confidence level or better. Unless noted otherwise, all comparisons made in this report were statistically significant using these tests.
In some cases, only a small number of sampled institutions responded to a particular questionnaire item. Such cases are noted in the appendix tables. All estimates provided in this report are based on more than 30 responding institutions.
Survey estimates are also subject to errors of reporting and errors made in the collection of the data. These errors, called nonsampling errors, can sometimes bias the data. While general sampling theory can be used to determine how to estimate the sampling variability of a statistic, nonsampling errors are not easy to measure and usually require that an experiment be conducted as part of the data collection procedures or the use of data external to the study.
Nonsampling errors may include such things as differences in the respondents' interpretation of the meaning of the questions, differences related to the particular time the survey was conducted, or errors in data preparation. During the design of the survey and survey pretest, an effort was made to check for consistency of interpretation of questions and to eliminate ambiguous items. The questionnaire was pretested with respondents like those who completed the survey, and the questionnaire and instructions were extensively reviewed by the Planning and Evaluation Service and the Customer Support Service offices in the U.S. Department of Education. Manual and machine editing of the questionnaires were conducted to check the data for accuracy and consistency. Cases with missing or inconsistent items were recontacted by telephone; data were keyed with 100 percent verification.
The data in this report are presented as "total" figures, which represent all kinds of schools grouped together, and for schools broken down by school control and school "type." These classifications are as follows:
These school characteristics are related to each other. For example:
-
###-
Return to Institutional Satisfaction Study
Return to Financial Aid Evaluation Page
