On Jan. 31, 2024, the House Committee Education and Workforce approved the College Cost Reduction Act (CCRA) (H.R. 6951), an overhaul of federal student aid, lending, repayment, and accreditation processes. The bill is meant to be a significant step toward reauthorizing the Higher Education Act of 1965, last updated in 2008.
The following data analysis focuses on two key parts of the CCRA:
- Risk-sharing (CCRA Section 301): The bill would require institutions to make annual risk-sharing payments based on the non-repayment balance of the student cohorts.
- PROMISE Grants (CCRA Section 212): The Promoting Real Opportunities to Maximize Investments and Savings in Education (PROMISE) Grants is a new performance-based program that would replace Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership Program beginning in award year 2026-2027. Institutions could opt into the program, with grants awarded every six years, and must adhere to a maximum price guarantee to completion for each program of study.
These two key provisions of the CCRA are also included in the Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan, the House Committee on Education and Workforce’s proposal to achieve at least $330 billion in savings. The full FY 2025 budget reconciliation bill, which includes this plan, has been approved by the House and is now under consideration in the Senate.
While this analysis was originally conducted for the CCRA, it remains relevant to the accountability provisions in the Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan. Despite limitations in publicly available data, the analysis offers valuable indications of how the CCRA might affect higher education institutions overall.
ACE’s analysis of these provisions is supplemented by data originally released by the committee, which includes projections on financial impacts, institutional accountability, and potential taxpayer savings. The two analyses differ primarily due to disparities in the availability of data sources and the assumptions made to fill in missing data. The ACE dataset relied on publicly available sources, which lacked critical data elements necessary for a comprehensive assessment. This explains the slight discrepancies in ACE's calculations compared to the committee's.