University Business - January 2012 - (Page 53)

MONEY M AT T E R S Top 10 Resource Wasters A hit list for reducing work for students and financial aid staff By Kathy Kurz G IVEN FEDERAL AND state regulations, especially now, there are many policies and procedures related to applying for, awarding, and disbursing aid that can’t be avoided. Still, in our travels, we often see aid offices making unnecessary extra work for themselves or students by clinging to outdated procedures or implementing policies for the entire student body because of concerns that impact only a select few. Scannell & Kurz has compiled this “hit list” of time- and money-wasting policies and procedures that should be reconsidered: 1. Requiring a signed award letter. Federal regulations required this many years ago, but it’s no longer necessary. Most institutions have moved to “passive acceptance,” in which students are told their aid will be processed and disbursed unless they notify the aid office that they do not want a particular fund. 2. Printing out ISIR summary sheets. e electronic copy is sufficient for audit purposes, so a paper copy is not needed. 3. Not fully utilizing auto-packaging functions. Many offices still hand package each award, even though they have a packaging policy that could be automated, or they keep a manual record of an auto-packaged award. Although the initial setup of the packaging protocols in the system can be time-consuming, it is well worth the effort in the speed and accuracy of packaging. Some that have automated the financial aid packaging process still require applications are simply asking questions to which the answers are already known. 5. Doing 100 percent verification. For those awarding significant amounts of institutional aid, it may make sense to verify all incoming aid recipients. But, many of those institutions continue to verify all returning students as well, rather than focusing only on students with substantial decreases in expected family contribution, where additional aid might be awarded. 6. Double-checking verification and awarding for every file. Internal checks and balances should be done to ensure that all counselors are handling files consistently and accurately, but checking a sample of records is likely sufficient to identify any areas of concern. In most cases, S&K has learned, extensive, timeconsuming double-checking of every file finds only a small percentage of errors. 7. Requiring students to apply for endowed scholarships rather than identifying eligible students. Not only does an application process for endowed scholarships add steps for students—and those who must review the applications—but it also makes it difficult for institutions to exchange funded dollars (endowed scholarships or annual gifts) for unfunded dollars, thus freeing unfunded dollars for other purposes. Students can be Kathy Kurz is vice president of the enrollment management consulting firm Scannell & Kurz, Inc. She can be reached via the firm’s website, www.scannellkurz.com. Time-consuming doublechecking of every le tends to nd only a small percentage of errors. counselors to write down the award on a summary sheet to have a written record of changes. However, most financial aid systems have very adequate audit trails that capture all changes—along with information about who made the change. Electronic comment screens also are typically available if a counselor needs to make notes about why a change was made. Relying on the system to track changes and comments not only saves time when awarding, but also enables anyone in the office to see what was done and why without having to pull a physical file. 4. Requiring an institutional aid application. In some cases, this is necessary. A good example would be if you’re serving a nontraditional population and need the application to know which terms students plan to attend and how many credits they plan to take. But most of the time, institutional financial aid universitybusiness.com January 2012 53  http://www.scannellkurz.com http://www.universitybusiness.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of University Business - January 2012

University Business - January 2012
Contents
Editor's Note
College Index
Ad Index
Behind the News
Human Resources
Campus CFo
Getting Carded
Choosing telepresence
boosting the bottom line
Printer Purchase Pointers
Money Matters
Viewpoint
End Note

University Business - January 2012

https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pmg/ub0112
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pmg/ub_cg09
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pmg/educomm2009
https://www.nxtbookmedia.com