Recent Changes at ED Raise Concern for Student Access, According to NASFAA RIF Survey
By Hugh T. Ferguson, NASFAA Managing Editor
NASFAA today released the results of a survey that gathered information about how recent workforce reductions at the Department of Education (ED) and the potential elimination of the department could affect members’ work and their ability to serve students who are now experiencing more confusion about accessing aid programs.
Nearly half of institutions (48%) ranked “impacts on students’ access to federal student aid” as their top concern. This far outpaced other operational or compliance-related risks, signaling that institutions are most alarmed about how federal changes may directly limit students’ ability to access, understand, and rely on financial aid.
Additionally, the survey found that federal processing slowdowns have been widespread since the reduction in force (RIF), with 59% of institutions reporting noticeable changes in FSA responsiveness or delays in processing timelines.
Institutions also reported longer wait times for phone support and delays in receiving responses to email inquiries. Some schools even reported receiving no replies from the department to submitted questions or support requests, raising concerns about the availability of federal contacts.
“These survey results make it clear that we already see the harm of the layoffs,” said NASFAA President & CEO Melanie Storey. “The Department must act quickly to remedy the situation before the damage to schools and students is beyond repair.”
Schools are also seeing an increase in student confusion, with 60% of institutions noting that they have received more student inquiries about ED-related services than usual within the last 30 days. Students have voiced their frustration to financial aid professionals over when — or whether — they will receive financial aid, and in many cases, schools are unable to provide clear answers due to a lack of federal updates.
This survey, which was open from May 6-13, represented approximately 900 institutions and had a 34% response rate.
Learn more about the survey’s main takeaways and stay tuned as we monitor institutional experiences with federal support structures.
Publication Date: 5/21/2025
Christopher H | 5/21/2025 7:24:02 PM
David S. I appreciate what you are saying very much. I can provide a more recent example of my concerns as it relates to why I think it is necessary for NASFAA to survey. You will likely recall the interview with Richard Cordray at the end of his term. There was a question posed during the segment related to FVT/GE, specifically referencing the election, the then looming deadline, and the deadline's relationship to the possibility of the new regulations becoming operational during the Trump administration. As part of the question, it was noted that the amount of time between the deadline and the inauguration was, I believe, six business days. When asked why FSA would maintain a deadline when the program was tabled during the last Trump administration, Mr. Cordray's response was, and I'm paraphrasing, "we delayed once ... we think transparency is important. This process and program is important to us." While I am not sure who "us" is, this is the type of detachment I'm speaking of. It is a detachment that places FSA staff, statutory interpretations, and politics first while schools and students are left behind. I am entering my 37th year in our profession and consider myself a progressive democrat. That said, I am not sure if it is possible to defend FSA at this time on the basis of good people who care only about seeing Amercian citizens complete higher education. The facts on the ground do not support this position. When NASFAA indicates that "we" as a membership disagree with the dismantling of FSA, I am left feeling not truly represented. My request is that our organization survey the membership before issuing important statements that impact families. If as a membership we land on the "FSA has always been fantastic, wow their people are great they just need more of them" platform, then so be it. If that is not the consensus, however, then we need to define the method our organization will use going forward to aggressively support our students.
Peter G | 5/21/2025 1:53:12 PM
As a west coast school, I would say the timing of the survey was a bit unfortunate. I think in terms of delay generally, it's pretty hard in this moment to perceive exactly where certain delays derive from - it's not like ED was particularly on the ball in 2024 either.
That said, the recent announcement that ED is reducing service hours to 10-6 Eastern is a significant change, since that's 7-3 Pacific. Definitely not ideal.
Perhaps related to the Christopher/David exchange, I think there's nuance here. It is true that we rely heavily on FSA staff to, for example, assist us through the E-App process. But that is in large part a function of how bloated that process has come. The problem I perceive is that the staffing cuts are preceding streamlining (or even elimination) of some of those requirements.
As a profession could deal with a thinner FSA staff if there were fewer points where interaction where mandatory and cumbersome to begin with.
None of that changes our empathy for the impact on individuals. But I might agree with Christopher at least that NASFAA's focus should be on the system as a whole - FSA staff are a piece of that, but it is strange to have the focus be on "we need more FSA staff" rather than "given the new FSA staffing environment, we need regulatory/process relief more than ever."
David S | 5/21/2025 12:57:50 PM
Christopher - I am sorry to hear that your direct experience with professionals at the Department of Education have been so negative. In my 40+ years in financial aid, my experience has been very different. As we are all human, no one is perfect, and some ED issues have received considerable coverage and don't need to be rehashed here. But I have known many of the staff there whose knowledge of and experience with financial aid shows breadth and depth. They have provided services both in front of and behind the scenes that make virtually every aspect of the work that goes on in financial aid offices possible, from training to writing regulations to managing massive processes that give us everything from ISIR's to cash drawdowns to loan originations and more. They are there no matter who is in the White House, driven by the desire to help Americans reach their goal of getting the best education they can. They care, they care very deeply. I have learned much from many ED/FSA staff and am proud to call many of them friends. And many would make excellent additions to staffs in our offices, in my opinion.
I'm not sure what "college-level-student-facing service" you envision that would provide your students all of the funding and services they need. And again, I'm sorry that your experience is so extremely different than mine and of many of our colleagues around the country.
Christopher H | 5/21/2025 9:26:15 AM
I think it is incredibly important that NASFAA survey membership as soon as possible about whether or not the organization should have an opinion either on RIF, or on any other aid issue outside of direct advocacy for student-level, on-campus operations. There is a large contingency of aid professionals who believe the level of DOE/FSA detachment from the aid community over the past 10-15 years is as bad as it has ever been. I was especially taken by the recent podcast where the notion of hiring FSA staff members involved in RIF could be considered a solution to long-standing office staffing challenges. This position, again, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of on-campus operations as they relate to experience gained at FSA. The hiring of a past FSA employee, one with no experience who likely spent the last five, ten or twenty years concentrating on a single chapter of statutory language, could only fairly be considered an exceptionally high-risk hire for any position outside of the most modest entry-level. Additionally, and more disappointing, NASFAA's statement noting the "harm of layoffs" is clearly intended to be an organization-wide advocacy statement indicating that there is consensus on the current RIF as it relates to FSA's past, current, and future service. There is a valid and defendable argument to be made that FSA is completely broken, does not respond to on-campus concerns at all, disregards real-life-real-people consequences of their actions, is terminally disconnected from aid offices, and should be completely dismantled if it is possible that college-level-student-facing service can be maintained.
David S | 5/21/2025 8:47:00 AM
Thank you for conducting this survey and providing the data. A follow up in a year or so would be interesting, to see where things stand compared to right now...how this has impacted enrollment, students' ability to pay their costs (direct and indirect), changes in receivables, adjustments to institutional aid strategies, use of and requests for emergency funds, increase in borrowing from private lenders, etc.
Sadly, the survey results, even this early into this administration, are predictable, inevitable...and exactly what the administration intended.
You must be logged in to comment on this page.