Reflections from NACAC Day of Advocacy on Capitol Hill

Last month I had the opportunity to participate in the NACAC Day of Advocacy on Capitol Hill.  What a learning experience!  My many thanks to Sean Robins and the NACAC team for supporting this event with an advanced day of “training”.  Also, a shout out to my partner, Rose Llanos, from Lynn University, for trudging around the Hill with me.  We got our steps in for sure.

In advance of spending our day on the Hill, as part of our advocacy training, we discussed opportunities to lean in on the silliness associated with including a Loan Origination Fee as part of a student loan that must be repaid.  Beyond the fee, when students repay their loan, part of this also involves repaying interest on the Origination Fee.  What?!?!?  Fortunately, there is legislation in play – Student Loan Tax Elimination Act – with bi-partisan support (isn’t that an oxymoron these days?) to eliminate this practice. 

In addition, we learned that 84% of new student enrollment between 2000 and 2023 originated from first- and second-generation students – termed: students of immigrant origin status.  Given the current demographic shift, certainly actively working to recruit this population of students seems like an enrollment opportunity for institutions. 

As part of our conversations with Congressional staffers, Rose and I were able to communicate the burden of the ACTS Mandate, the timeline associated with compliance, as well as the punitive nature of the Mandate.  Each violation could result in a $70,000+ fine that would add up quickly with multiple violations given the six-to-seven-year reporting timeline associated with the Mandate.  Beyond this, we learned how inconsistent messages were delivered to institutions when trying to report on data gaps.  For instance, given that originally, only male and female gender options were allowed when reporting, and institutions often had more than male and female reporting options in their institutional data, institutions were told to, “make it up” or “just figure it out”.  Really?!?!  This is your best answer knowing there are penalties involved?  Hopefully, we were able to convey how the reporting timeline should be extended, or more importantly, how the Mandate should be dropped.  When talking with a former colleague this spring about the Mandate, he shared the amount of time he had spent on data collection was inhibiting his ability to complete the primary function of his job – working to enroll a new cohort of students for his institution.   

The last topic Rose and I hit on with Congressional staffers involved the Pell Grant shortfall.  Some of the answers we received were nothing short of jaw dropping.  For example, more than one staffer shared, “The gap will just be filled somehow with funding coming from nowhere that will kick the can down the road 150 years and none of us will be around anymore…”  What?!?!  If I had shared that as a solution to funding challenges in my prior institutional roles, I would have been drawn and quartered.  Sadly, this sentiment was a common theme to finances on the Hill – no wonder we have a federal budget deficit. 

Overall, the day was a thrill.  Such broadening perspective to see how federal policy is shaped.  The number of different lobbying groups we interacted with – military, healthcare related, pest control (yes – you read this right) – was eye-opening.  How Congress priorities which issues to address and tackle in a day, let alone a week or month, was fascinating. 

The work we engaged in advocating for students served as a common grounding principle.  As everyone we met with had gone to college and appreciated the opportunities afforded them from their alma maters, this provided opportunities to influence on the issues we raised.  Starting with a story they could relate to worked magic!